Why is podiatry not a sub-specialty of medicine?

[de Ribas]

---

Members don't see this ad.

they don't dude, that's just a fact; your anecdote is meaningless, your DO doesn't want the NP to run and get his approval for everything because that would only slow everything down. full autonomy is practicing under your own license; the vast majority of states do not offer NPs this privilege though they continue to fight that. you keep confusing "indistinguishable to the layman" with "same autonomy"


buddy there's a 0% chance your clinical rotations are at the same level as that of MDs. I mean, how can you even know this? I didn't realize the stark quality differences among MD schools until I started doing away sub-i's and then subsequently as a resident. moreover, it's not only just bout having the same-named rotations on paper; it's about what you actually do during those rotations and the fervor with which you study and work during those weeks.

and I would contend that most people interested in orthopedics should shadow an orthopedist


Oh my god you got me. I have a high opinion of myself. Let me go ahead and diminish my accomplishments, pretend I'm not as intelligent as I am all to appease your sense of misguided egalitarianism.

Hey you know what perspective actually has no literal place in medicine, that of a premed ;-)



Excuse me?


Neither GPA nor MCAT has any bearing on this current discussion as far as I'm concerned. Their average can be 4.0/45 (I'm old) or 1.0/3, doesn't make a lick of difference because it's about post-acceptance education and training. Pretty much anyone with a 3.0/24 in my opinion is perfectly capable of learning enough of the material if given the opportunity/ required to do so.


Yea higher salaries would be a start and often cited reason to not do primary care. Doesn't have to be cardiologist level but should probably be higher than a surgical PA.

You are outdated. Just confirms lack of knowledge, ignorance and not enough research of current health care system in USA. I know another state where I lived before; there, NPs have full autonomy and NP can see patients in their own clinic/office without any other licensed provider. I cannot speak for other states. I know 2 states for sure.

My current state's law says:

Nurse practitioner practice.

"Nurse practitioner practice" means the provision of care including:

health promotion, disease prevention, health education, and counseling;

providing health assessment and screening activities;

diagnosing, treating, and facilitating patients' management of their acute and chronic illnesses and diseases;

ordering, performing, supervising, and interpreting diagnostic studies,

prescribing pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies; and

the diagnosis and treatment of health and illness states;

disease management;

prevention of illness and risk behaviors;




That is more than enough to work in PC practice and provide valuable professional services.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

You are outdated. Just confirms lack of knowledge, ignorance and not enough research of current health care system in USA. I know another state where I lived before; there, NPs have full autonomy and NP can see patients in their own clinic/office without any other licensed provider. I cannot speak for other states. I know 2 states for sure.

So, while accusing me of being ignorant and confidently saying I'm wrong, you tell me you can't speak for any other states except maybe two... OK

By the way let me make your googling easier, it's less than half. Unfortunately this is a battle we're losing no thanks to people like you. Presuming you're in Minnesota, you're right in that state NPs are fully autonomous.

 

[de Ribas]

So, while accusing me of being ignorant and confidently saying I'm wrong, you tell me you can't speak for any other states except maybe two... OK

By the way let me make your googling easier, it's less than half. Unfortunately this is a battle we're losing no thanks to people like you. Presuming you're in Minnesota, you're right in that state NPs are fully autonomous.

I don't see a battle. I see how access to primary care is becoming better especially in rural areas. I hope it will get even better with NP's getting better and wider acceptance.

If MD world can't keep up with demand and competition its not a problem of the patient population. I was born in medically underserved area and I value access to health care very much. Having access to care within several days and within local area more important than waiting 2 weeks for MD appointment 50 miles away.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

I don't see a battle. I see how access to primary care is becoming better especially in rural areas. I hope it will get even better with NP's getting better and wider acceptance.

What incentive do you think NPs have in getting better?

By the way when you say primary care is becoming "better" what you really mean is "there are more primary care providers." There's value in that, sure, but that doesn't mean the quality is there.

 

[DexterMorganSK]

buddy there's a 0% chance your clinical rotations are at the same level as that of MDs. I mean, how can you even know this? I didn't realize the stark quality differences among MD schools until I started doing away sub-i's and then subsequently as a resident. moreover, it's not only just bout having the same-named rotations on paper; it's about what you actually do during those rotations and the fervor with which you study and work during those weeks.

You're 100% wrong about this, Buddy.

The rotations that are the same with those of an MD curriculum such as IM and EM, follows the same requirement for both the MD students and the DPM students. If you didn't know the "stark quality" difference then that's too bad. Before entering and even thinking about doing medicine, I researched and shadowed 4th-year students, to residents, to attendings, and to actual practicing Pods. And of course the elective and sub-i's are just for Pods will be just for Pod students and not MD students, and vice-versa. For example, we don't have to do an OB rotation.

 

[DexterMorganSK]

A sample Podiatry curriculum, if anyone is interested.

Keep in mind, a student entering a Pod school knows from Day 1 what they will be doing until they retire, hence the basic science curriculum with "specialized 3/4 years.

4 years of Pod school with 3-4 years of Pod surgical & medicine residency.
There are also 1-2 years of fellowships in specific areas such as Sports medicine, Wound care, and others.

http://www.aacpm.org/wp-content/uploads/2017-2018-CIB_DIGITAL-FINAL.pdf

 

[de Ribas]

What incentive do you think NPs have in getting better?

By the way when you say primary care is becoming "better" what you really mean is "there are more primary care providers." There's value in that, sure, but that doesn't mean the quality is there.

I think that for RN to become Nurse Practitioner is already a good incentive. It is a career growth. Plus they get a somewhat higher pay, less hours, less stress and more leadership and autonomous opportunities. I think those are good incentives for them. I addition, most nurses went into healthcare not for prestige or big name, but for sincere desire to help people, prevent disease and provide to communities. When they become NP's most of them have many years of experience behind their back and kind hearts.

I would agree 100% that NP education is far from MD/DO, but for primary care practice (where in most cases it is to refer to a physician specialist) I think it is enough.

When people have to wait for several weeks for an MD/DO appointment in rural areas, they tend to cancel their appointments and wait until emergency or when their condition gets more complicated. This contributes to higher costs and lower quality of care. I believe that having NP's in rural areas improves Access, promotes Quality of care, and reduced overall healthcare costs.

There is proven data and several studies that show ho NP's prevent ER visits and hospitalization.

I am not comparing nor saying that NP's should replace physicians or that there is equal education or training. It is not even a topic for this thread. But, I want to show that every healthcare professional deserves respect, has their own space in healthcare and deserve recognition.

 

[DokM3m3]

It would be fair for the purpose of overall comparison.
Actually, I was not comparing. Stats are obvious and everyone knows the averages. We know they are different.
My only point was that there are still MD schools and DO schools with similar (not equal) stats. In fact, there are students who have 3.8+ GPAs and still go to podiatry. The point is that that GPA difference is not most significant factor to determine how good physician will be. That was my point to show these stats. There are hundreds of students who matriculate in medical schools with lower than 3.3 GPA and they still become physicians.

GPA and MCAT are indeed very important factors, but definitely not everything to point out that pod schools have lower stats therefore they are not qualified or less qualified.

All I want is for people to think objectively.

I never said the lower averages mean less qualified. I was just pointing out the fact that if podiatry was a sub specialty of medicine, most of the current practicing podiatrists would not have the stats to get in and wouldn't be the podiatrists they are.

 

[de Ribas]

I never said the lower averages mean less qualified. I was just pointing out the fact that if podiatry was a sub specialty of medicine, most of the current practicing podiatrists would not have the stats to get in and wouldn't be the podiatrists they are.

Most likely.

But, if looking objectively, out of 800 podiatry matriculants about 300 have good stats for DO schools. I am sure that more than 300 out of 25,000 DO/MD matriculants have lower stats than 3.2-3.3.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

You're 100% wrong about this, Buddy.

The rotations that are the same with those of an MD curriculum such as IM and EM, follows the same requirement for both the MD students and the DPM students. If you didn't know the "stark quality" difference then that's too bad. Before entering and even thinking about doing medicine, I researched and shadowed 4th-year students, to residents, to attendings, and to actual practicing Pods. And of course the elective and sub-i's are just for Pods will be just for Pod students and not MD students, and vice-versa. For example, we don't have to do an OB rotation.

My man I already stated above same on paper is not the same as actually... same. If that were the case the Carib would have an excellent argument that their education is equivalent. Heck even chiro schools on paper offer much of the same in the way of course titles. (n.b. I'm not saying DPMs are in any way equivalent to chiros)

Looking at the curriculum you posted immediately after, even on paper there are noticeable gaps, namely IM, Peds, and GSurg, all of which are "offered clinical rotations" in the 4th year, which to me reads as "elective."

Look dawg there's literally 0 shame in acknowledging the education is different. Even if it is titled the same the end result will be different too. I guarantee that even if we took away the add'l LE anatomy, you would know more LE anatomy than 95% of your MD counterparts after the first year. Similarly you can't reasonably argue that the MD students aren't going to take away more from the general clinical rotations than you are.

I think that for RN to become Nurse Practitioner is already a good incentive. It is a career growth. Plus they get a somewhat higher pay, less hours, less stress and more leadership and autonomous opportunities. I think those are good incentives for them. I addition, most nurses went into healthcare not for prestige or big name, but for sincere desire to help people, prevent disease and provide to communities. When they become NP's most of them have many years of experience behind their back and kind hearts.

I wasn't asking if RNs have an incentive to become NPs, my question was what incentive do NPs have to be better at their practice, since you said NPs will get better.

I don't think it's particularly useful conjecture to guess why most nurses go into healthcare. Moreover, years of experience as an RN doesn't translate at all IMO to independent advanced practice in an outpatient setting.

I would agree 100% that NP education is far from MD/DO, but for primary care practice (where in most cases it is to refer to a physician specialist) I think it is enough.

This is exactly what's wrong with your conception of adequate primary care.

When people have to wait for several weeks for an MD/DO appointment in rural areas, they tend to cancel their appointments and wait until emergency or when their condition gets more complicated. This contributes to higher costs and lower quality of care. I believe that having NP's in rural areas improves Access, promotes Quality of care, and reduced overall healthcare costs.

Yes I think this is probably true.

 

[DexterMorganSK]

My man I already stated above same on paper is not the same as actually... same. If that were the case the Carib would have an excellent argument that their education is equivalent. Heck even chiro schools on paper offer much of the same in the way of course titles. (n.b. I'm not saying DPMs are in any way equivalent to chiros)

Looking at the curriculum you posted immediately after, even on paper there are noticeable gaps, namely IM, Peds, and GSurg, all of which are "offered clinical rotations" in the 4th year, which to me reads as "elective."

Look dawg there's literally 0 shame in acknowledging the education is different. Even if it is titled the same the end result will be different too. I guarantee that even if we took away the add'l LE anatomy, you would know more LE anatomy than 95% of your MD counterparts after the first year. Similarly you can't reasonably argue that the MD students aren't going to take away more from the general clinical rotations than you are.

We can go on and on about the similarities or the differences between Pods and others. But that won't help anyone, not you, me and not OP..who started this thread..lol. Today's premeds and patients are much smarter than when possibly you and I were pre-meds (I'm 31), so a patient can choose who they want to be treated by, just like how a pre-med can decide themselves what they want to be or don't' want to be.

And I'll end by saying that titles may be different, the person behind that white coat be different, but a patient's suffering stays the same.

So, irrespective of the fields or the titles, I think, the patients and patient care should always come first, and this is only successful when we collaborate between one health care professional with another. Patient care is why I got into this field, and hopefully, you did too.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I would agree 100% that NP education is far from MD/DO, but for primary care practice (where in most cases it is to refer to a physician specialist) I think it is enough.

This is super insulting to primary care physicians, first of all, stating that their specialty is simple enough that someone with minimal training can do it. Second of all, it just shows how little most people understand about primary care. A huge percentage of midlevels don’t know what they don’t know. When all you know is basic primary care stuff that is formulaic, all but the most obvious looks like basic primary care diagnoses. This is how patients slip through the cracks and don’t get the care they need. And this is not to mention the misuse of drugs, extra unnecessary tests, etc.

Don’t get me wrong, I think midlevels can be great. I have worked with some great ones, and properly used, they can do a lot to fill the gaps. But I’ve worked in a setting taking care of patients with only the most superficial physician supervision (showing face once a month only to review some charts), and the knowledge gap is very, very real. Letting them practice completely independently isn’t the right answer.

This in no way applies to pods, who actually have a level of knowledge equal to physicians in their area, which is why they get to use that term. I’ve worked with a couple pods in the OR, and they were all great. It was pretty obvious one of them wanted to be an MD/DO and still had kind of an inferiority complex (which really isn’t justified, since pods really aren’t inferior I think), as he turned every bunionectomy as the case of the century, taking twice as long as the other pods. But even he still did a great job.

 

[de Ribas]

This is super insulting to primary care physicians, first of all, stating that their specialty is simple enough that someone with minimal training can do it. Second of all, it just shows how little most people understand about primary care. A huge percentage of midlevels don’t know what they don’t know. When all you know is basic primary care stuff that is formulaic, all but the most obvious looks like basic primary care diagnoses. This is how patients slip through the cracks and don’t get the care they need. And this is not to mention the misuse of drugs, extra unnecessary tests, etc.

Don’t get me wrong, I think midlevels can be great. I have worked with some great ones, and properly used, they can do a lot to fill the gaps. But I’ve worked in a setting taking care of patients with only the most superficial physician supervision (showing face once a month only to review some charts), and the knowledge gap is very, very real. Letting them practice completely independently isn’t the right answer.

This in no way applies to pods, who actually have a level of knowledge equal to physicians in their area, which is why they get to use that term. I’ve worked with a couple pods in the OR, and they were all great. It was pretty obvious one of them wanted to be an MD/DO and still had kind of an inferiority complex (which really isn’t justified, since pods really aren’t inferior I think), as he turned every bunionectomy as the case of the century, taking twice as long as the other pods. But even he still did a great job.

I am sorry if I have made it seem as if PCP's only refer to specialists. It is kind of taken out of context of what I was saying. That was not even complete sentence and I did not have intention to describe physician work in primary care. Primary care physicians are highly qualified and I would never belittle what they do. I guess I didn't word it right. But please do not just take phrase or two out of context.

I guess what I wanted to say that NPs would not make decisions themselves if it requires specific diagnosis. They would refer to a specialist and after specialist have seen that patient, they would continue care and such.

We know that family physicians are qualified and trained to do wide scope of things, but still would not do certain things without specialist. Even though family physician can interpret MRI he/she will rely on radiologist report. Even neurologists that I have shadowed are well-trained to interpret MRI, but still wait for the report from radiologist.

So far, as I am aware, studies show that there are many benefits of NPs in primary care. It is not so hard to find these studies. and data.

And this is not to mention the misuse of drugs, extra unnecessary tests, etc.

Let's think objectively. Should I remind how many deaths are there in US every year due to physician errors and how many wrong limbs are amputated every year?

 

[NTT123]

Foot and Ankle Surgeons (DPMs) who are Certified in Foot and Ankle Surgery or Certified in Foot Surgery and Certified in Reconstructive Rearfoot/Ankle Surgery by the American Board of Foot and Ankle Surgery (ABFAS) are physicians specifically trained to diagnose and treat the foot and ankle.

Each ABFAS Board Certified Foot and Ankle Surgeon has:
-Completed four years of Podiatric Medical School. Identical in length to Allopathic and Osteopathic Medical Schools, the Podiatric Medical School curriculum covers basic and clinical sciences, including, but not limited to: general anatomy; pathology; biochemistry; pharmacology; general medicine; surgery; pediatrics; behavioral sciences; and ethics.

- Completed post-graduate Podiatric Medicine and Surgery (PMSR) Residency.
In all non-podiatric rotations of a DPMs residency, DPMs train sideby-side with MDs and DOs, with the same level of responsibilities and expectations as their counterparts. By the end, their training and education is nearly indistinguishable from practitioners of other regional specialties of medicine, such as otolaryngologists.

MD/DO/DPM: 4 years of professional School, minimum 3 year residency, independent Dx and Rx in both hospital and office, Admitting H&P hospital privilege, full Rx license, Surgery privilege.
- In most states, DPM allow to perform amputation. In some States DPMs allow to supervise PA.
- DPMs treat the majority of foot related medical issues in the United States. Orthopaedists are the second largest providers of foot related medical issues. (CMS)

DPT/OD: independent Dx and Rx in the office.

NP/PA: few states allow NP independent Dx and Rx.

 

[NTT123]

Someone here fears that a podiatrist will eat his lunch. In the end, these turf wars all come down to money.

This could be true.

Influence of podiatry on orthopedic surgery at a level I trauma center

The Orthopedics journal (2014), author Jakoi, A et al., [6 authors total]

Drexel College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

"Level I trauma centers frequently evaluate injuries that occur at or below the ankle, and many of these require surgical intervention. Traditionally, these injuries were treated by orthopedic surgeons; however, this appears to be changing. Podiatry is now an established alternative for even the most complex foot and ankle injuries. As staff privileges expand to include podiatric physicians at Level I trauma centers, more orthopedic surgeons find the number of emergency department consultations for foot and ankle injuries decreasing"

Result

"Over the 5 years since the introduction of a podiatry residency, their share of consultations steadily increased from 5/55 (9%) to 16/53 (30%), 23/73 (32%), 26/64 (41%), and 41/71 (58%), respectively."

Discussion
"This decrease in foot and ankle case evaluations by the orthopedic surgery department occurred despite the fact that podiatric resident coverage was present only during the hours of 8 am to 6 pm."

 

[Prometheus123]

I read this thread while waiting to see an optometrist. As I finally entered the exam room and pocketed my phone, the optometrist introduced herself as Dr. so and so. Meta alert.

 

[throw_away5122]

I am so tired of people pissing at each for whose to be called doctor or not. First MD told DO not be called doctor and now DNP, DPM, DDS...You guys need to all stop. If one earn a doctorate degree, they have to right to call themselves "doctor". As long as they do not further specify themselves "physician" or "medical doctor"; that is fine enough.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I read this thread while waiting to see an optometrist. As I finally entered the exam room and pocketed my phone, the optometrist introduced herself as Dr. so and so. Meta alert.

The appellation Dr. isn't really what's being debated here. Clinical psychologists, optometrists, etc. are entitled to use Dr., but none of them are physicians. I think your post was probably mostly in jest though.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I am so tired of people pissing at each for whose to be called doctor or not. First MD told DO not be called doctor and now DNP, DPM, DDS...You guys need to all stop. If one earn a doctorate degree, they have to right to call themselves "doctor". As long as they do not further specify themselves "physician" or "medical doctor"; that is fine enough.

Sort of. A DNP wants to call himself Dr. So-and-so in an academic setting or at a restaurant when getting a table, sure. When you use the appellation Dr. in a clinical setting, it is assumed that you are a physician (MD/DO/DPM) and not a nurse with a 19-month online doctorate. Nurses calling themselves doctor is confusing to patients.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I am sorry if I have made it seem as if PCP's only refer to specialists. It is kind of taken out of context of what I was saying. That was not even complete sentence and I did not have intention to describe physician work in primary care. Primary care physicians are highly qualified and I would never belittle what they do. I guess I didn't word it right. But please do not just take phrase or two out of context.

I guess what I wanted to say that NPs would not make decisions themselves if it requires specific diagnosis. They would refer to a specialist and after specialist have seen that patient, they would continue care and such.

We know that family physicians are qualified and trained to do wide scope of things, but still would not do certain things without specialist. Even though family physician can interpret MRI he/she will rely on radiologist report. Even neurologists that I have shadowed are well-trained to interpret MRI, but still wait for the report from radiologist.

So far, as I am aware, studies show that there are many benefits of NPs in primary care. It is not so hard to find these studies. and data.

You should actually look at the studies done on NPs in primary care. There are a bunch of studies funded by nursing associations that show "equal outcomes" between NPs and physicians. It would be a good exercise for you to read them and determine why they are garbage. You could then look at some studies that are not inherently biased and try to find their limitations. What you will see is that even though there are some limitations on those studies, they do not look at arbitrary, nebulous measures like blood pressure (which is what the garbage studies do). They look at cost to patients, number of consults, etc. When an NP is taking twice as long with each patient, consulting twice as much, ordering unnecessary tests, etc., they are not part of the solution.

But, as I said, midlevels have a place in primary care (and other specialties). There are ways that they can be very useful in serving the underserved and extending physician care to those who lack access. As I said though, simply giving them equal practice rights is not the answer. They have a significant knowledge gap and cannot think outside of their protocols--when things don't look quite right, they will flip through mental gymnastics to stuff them into one of the boxes they are familiar with.

Let's think objectively. Should I remind how many deaths are there in US every year due to physician errors and how many wrong limbs are amputated every year?

In this study (Incidence, Patterns, and Prevention of Wrong-Site Surgery), they looked at 2,826,367 operations and found 25 non-spine wrong-site operations, giving an incidence of 1 in 112,994, or 0.000885%. Of those, there was permanent injury in 1 case (so 1 in 2,826,367, or 0.0000354%), temporary but major in 2 cases (0.0000708%), and temporary but minor in 10 cases (0.000354%). So it is pretty rare, actually.

As far as patient deaths due to physician error, there is no good data on it. Estimates of deaths due to medical error vary between 98k and 440k. That is obviously a huge range, and there's no way to know which end of the spectrum it's closer to. Additionally, that number is not just physician errors, but medical error in general, which includes RNs, NPs, PAs, etc. So we actually can't say whether doctors kill more patients than NPs or vice versa.

So objectively, there are very, very few wrong-site operations performed annually, and even fewer people who are harmed by it (1 permanent case in almost 3 million cases over 19 years), and we can't say what the actual number is for medical error caused deaths.

 

[Windom Earle]

Because mouths and feet are gross.

Mouths?

 

[deleted103644]

You’ll get it eventually..

 

[Coltuna]

fwiw, our podiatry residents rotate for longer in the ER than our family med residents (unopposed program).

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

fwiw, our podiatry residents rotate for longer in the ER than our family med residents.

Since they will be consulting on cases in the ED and FPs typically won’t, that makes sense, no?

 

[Coltuna]

Since they will be consulting on cases in the ED and FPs typically won’t, that makes sense, no?

Oh yeah definitely! Just making a comparison for the sake of feeling important on SDN.

 

[Deecee2DO]

It has to do with the history of how podiatry schools developed, the politics around them at the time of development, the subsequent political or "turf" power they had, and the difficulty with giving that up.

In the late 1990s there was a project started called "Physician 2015" that was attempting to unify MD, DO, and DPM. Immediately, all the separate national, state, local associations as well as specialty societies/academies were generally against it as they would each potentially would lose what independent turf and political influences they had. Podiatry, being the smallest, left first. In some states, such as NY, CA, FL, and especially NJ, they have significant power and entrenchment. The only thing this project eventually led to was the combining of ACGME (MD) and AOA (DO) residencies and that was due to the weakness each side had. MDs needed more slots for more grads and DO had many open slots with fewer hospitals. Hence the marriage of the residency systems.

The American medical education, licensing and oversight system in the late 1800s was the wild west with virtually no standards for doctors, dentists, and chiropodists, who were early "specialists" of the foot that was more akin to trade or craft than a profession. In the 1880s there was the start of a generational change that began modernizing all of the medical professions, but it took up thru the 1920s to put it fully in place. The American medical education system at this time ranged from modern JHU to short programs that may only last a few months. Also at this time was the development of Osteopathy, so there was as much incentive to have their "turf" and power as there was to professionalize medicine. So MD, DO, and DPM developed in parallel and this was pushed forward by the Flexner Report, which was study that premedical and medical education still basically follows. Remember that power and turf here would be the state medical boards for each MD, DO, DPM; professional associations on the national, local, and state levels; and the specialty associations on the national, state, and local level. There was large separate MD and DO hospital systems. The DO and DPM schools caught up to MD in professionalism and science soon after WWII. In the 1960s thru 1980s both DO and DPM started either getting privileges at MD hospitals (much of due to Nelson Rockefeller and his bad back) or started ambulatory surgery, which was led in many ways by the DPMs. Currently, I think that there are 42 combined medical boards (MD/DO) in the states and obviously residency systems are the same. Podiatry has finally caught up in this regard with now required 3 year PGY residency. Most of the surgical programs for this, which is roughly 1/2 the residencies, are usually in conjunction with Orthopedics. Podiatry follows the same education model as both MD/DO, including core rotations in most the areas, though in much less intense manner. For example, the IM rotations may be 6 weeks in office setting with various specialties. Podiatry deals with major three areas: general foot issues, sports related, and diabetes. For example, I have seen DPM as attendings for wound care fellows. Essentially Podiatrists are doctors who specialized while still in medical school. For students who want to be in medicine, who may want to do surgery, see patients, and be a doctor, they should look into this especially over the Caribbean

Great post. I will be a DO and I think of DPMs as physicians. But, that is just me. Cue the hate mail lol

 

[DexterMorganSK]

Great post. I will be a DO and I think of DPMs as physicians. But, that is just me. Cue the hate mail lol

Rowan is a great school. Congrats!