“Following a review of the Standard of Proficiency, the GOsC is currently consulting on draft revised Osteopathic Practice Standards … We would welcome your views on the draft Osteopathic Practice Standards.”

Unfortunately at the time of writing, the link to the PDF on Practice Standards leads to a page claiming: “The page you were looking for doesn’t exist.” Fortunately there is a helpful link to the website administrators to tell them about the problem. Is this the benchmark to which we should all aspire?

At present, there is considerable lack of clarity about what constitutes osteopathic practice … we would like to hear whether you feel it necessary to define osteopathy and, if so, how this could best be achieved.

The question is do the GOsC really want to know whether it is necessary to define osteopathy? The same site also contains Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). One such question, which can be found half way down the page, asks What is osteopathy? :

Osteopathy is a primary care profession, focusing on the diagnosis, treatment, prevention and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal disorders, and the effects of these conditions on patient’s general health.

It would appear that despite the appearance of consultation with the profession and the public about the scope of practice, the GOsC has already decided that osteopathy is ‘focused’ on musculoskeletal disorders. This is re-emphasised in the answer to the next FAQ, “What do osteopaths treat?”, repeating the fact that osteopathy (not osteopaths) focuses on musculoskeletal and related disorders:

Osteopathy focuses on the diagnosis, management, treatment and prevention of musculoskeletal and other related disorders without the use of drugs or surgery.

There is a huge and often subliminal tide towards the focus of treatment on musculoskeletal disorders, as this is what the majority of osteopaths currently treat. Just because there are lots of GPs, this does not mean that medicine does not specialise in anything other than family healthcare in general practice, so why are osteopaths being limited to treatment of musculoskeletal and related disorders?

Another page on the site, about osteopathy, addresses the hot topic of pregnant women, saying that they seek treatment for “changes to posture in pregnancy”. How long before the scope of practice is limited to an even smaller range of disorders than those for which osteopaths are currently allowed to claim benefit?

A page on continuing professional development gives an insight into the way the GOsC think about osteopathy dealing with anything other than straightforward musculoskeletal disorders:

There are now also postgraduate courses for osteopaths in a range of subjects including sports care and osteopathic treatment of children (my emphasis).

The GOsC appear to have made a small concession to the fact that osteopaths can learn more about such new treatment approaches such paediatrics and sports medicine after graduation – what about the long-established Osteopathic Centre for Children; the osteopathic olympic support team; treatment of animals; visceral osteopathy? 

GPs are encouraged by the GOsC to refer patients to osteopaths for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) :

… treatment is based on mobilising and manipulative procedures tailored to the individual patient, reinforced by guidance on diet, lifestyle and exercise … Conditions appropriate for referral include MSDs such as back, neck and shoulder pain, headaches, and sport- and work-related injuries.  Other commonly treated conditions include migraine, asthma, arthritic pain, digestive disorders and infantile colic.

Only GPs, not the public, are told by the GOsC that osteopaths treat these other conditions. With such an attitude from our ruling body we have a long way to go before the tide turns on osteopathy and we are recognised as being able to (or allowed to) treat the whole person, whoever they are and whatever their health status.

Over recent years regulation has become the scourge of businesses of every kind, much of it in the name of ‘Health & Safety’ or consumer protection. Remember we are healers: we already have the best interests of our patients at heart without having to produce statistics or jump through hoops as many of us did with the Personal Profile and Portfolio registration process farce. Practice audit is something that could be easily integrated into the routine of most osteopaths, but redefining osteopathy, limiting our scope of practice and having to fit into a box every few years could seriously add to the burden of making an honest living through helping people.

What many forget is that the current Government are not there forever, and with a general election looming, they may now be more open to influence or persuasion than when there was a seemingly unshakeable hold on power. As a group we would have political lobbying strength if we were united in what we want. With our patients behind us, we could achieve even more. The British Osteopathic Association are our voice to lobby for what we want as a profession, and must listen to us as individuals, groups and colleges. All we have to do is say what we really think.

GPs are constantly battling against paperwork, but they have the resources to back them up – practice managers, receptionists, and the NHS. As lone osteopaths, or as part of a small group practice, we should be very wary about accepting more paperwork just for the sake of political correctness and the trend towards acting through fear espoused by ever-increasing Orwellian regulation.