If something is inevitable – like it or not – then we need to attempt to mould the process as much as is feasible – or opt out. The question is – is the label ‘osteopath’ important to you? If so accommodation to this process is required and that should be made (by our representatives) as painless as possible. A key question is how we can best achieve that end?

The process of revalidation seems to me to have a great deal to do with organisation of information for others – how we reflect on what we do, how we keep up to date, how we do what we do, how we record what we do etc. So, as one does, I went searching in Amazon, and identified a recent book: Revalidation: Prepare Now and Get It Right by Ruth Chambers, Gill Wakeley, and Phil Bright (Radcliffe Publishing 2008) – that offers a detailed look at this process,

It contains chapter titles such as:

Collecting your evidence – including: preparing for appraisal and revalidation; identifying your professional development; what to learn etc

Demonstrating the standards of your practice – including: evidence of competence and performance; demonstrating you can provide good clinical care; good medical [osteopathic] practice; good relationships with patients; how well you work with colleagues; high standards of teaching and training; probity; high standards in research; affirming your health status; and the quality of your work in various settings (clinical, management, employer, team leader, academic post etc)_

My initial response to the prospect of having to demonstrate all this, was an ego driven sense of frustration and irritation. But are those feelings justifiable? Is it not possible, indeed likely, that I really should be able to demonstrate all (most?) of these qualities, capabilities, skills – and pretty well at that, after nearly 50 years in practice?

The time, effort, bureaucratic-irritation, are the hurdles. But the truth is that this is inevitable, so what we need to do as a profession is inform the GOC via consultation in the hope that they will pay some attention to our concerns, as to what’s important and what’s less so. And/or we should lobby our paid representatives (e.g. BOA) to do the same.

I rationalise that as I approach retirement (again), when the time comes to finally give up seeing patients (this time for good), the prospect of revalidation is less of an issue, for me personally.

In my mind osteopathy, as a philosophical model of health care, that dovetails neatly with naturopathic thinking, has little to do with what techniques are chosen to achieve therapeutic change, but has everything to do with recognition of the primary potency of self-regulation which we aim to encourage by means of our therapeutic methodology.

Observing and recording our patient management skills, technical skills and all the other revalidation requirements, including CPD requirements, may have very little to do with how well we deliver this model of healthcare – but demonstrating that we can handle all the revalidation demands may be the price we have to pay in order to continue practising.

Leon Chaitow

Corfu April 2009