GOsC Consultations – Our view so far

This piece is reproduced with the kind permission of the BOA from the May edition of Osteopathy Today. It represents the view of the BOA Council.

Revalidation

GOsC invited the BOA to be involved from the very start of the consultation, and you may have read discussion articles that we published in the summer of 2006. From the outset we recognised that there was a very strong political will to make revalidation happen for all healthcare professions and we decided that, rather than fighting the whole concept, our energies would be better spent ensuring that whatever system was devised would be proportionate and in some way useful to the profession as a whole.

We are aware that some members are very concerned that this could turn into another PPP nightmare. Having looked at the proposals so far, we do not think that this is a real risk: the GOsC seems committed to ensuring that the process is balanced, fair and transparent. Part of our job is making sure they carry out that commitment and in particular it is vital that the process is thoroughly transparent. That means it must include:

1. Clear descriptions (question by question) of what is required from every practitioner including an indication of the maximum length of answer expected;
2. Published criteria for the assessment process and what the assessors will be seeking to establish;
3. Published criteria for the selection, recruitment, training and appraisal of assessors;

The phasing in of the process will allow the GOsC time to test the system and make such changes as prove necessary, and also allow the profession time to learn how to tackle the process so that when it comes to filling in the form everything will be on hand to make the process quick and easy.

We will be pushing hard to make sure the process is transparent and appropriately phased in.

We are also working on revalidation workshops and a ‘How to comply with revalidation’ workbook, to help members through the process as painlessly as possible.

Osteopathic Practice Framework

We are not happy with the idea of describing osteopathic practice under the categories of ‘typical’, ‘less typical’ and ‘least typical’. Anything that restricts scope of practice risks splitting the profession so that keeping the widest possible scope must be an important starting point.

We have been closely involved with the Scope of Practice debate in Europe and the first draft of the discussion paper produced for the EFO by our Chief Executive, Michael Watson, can be viewed in the members’ news section of www.osteopathy.org. This avoids the categorisation of osteopathic practice in terms of how commonly it may be encountered, and describes instead a broad spectrum of osteopathic treatment that may be encountered. It does not include adjunctive treatments, such as dry needling and acupuncture, as part of osteopathy, but states that osteopaths employing such adjunctive techniques should do so in a spirit that is consistent with the principles and philosophy of osteopathy. We will need to stress that osteopathy is and has always been a manual therapy. We have to be careful not to end up describing types of osteopathy, whilst indicating that there are many different tool kits of manual techniques that osteopaths choose from.

The feedback we have received from members so far indicates unease with the approach in the discussion document and we will press the GOsC to revise this to maintain the widest scope of practice within the Practice Framework.

Standards of Proficiency

The proposed replacement for S2K represents a major step forward in terms of clarity and in addressing issues of concern to the profession. It allows osteopaths to exercise responsible professional judgement to problems rather than attempting to specify ‘one size fits all’ solutions.

We are monitoring feedback on this document, but so far there has not been a great deal. Please make sure you read this carefully and let us know any reservations you may have.

Code of Practice

The GOsC has just started the initial consultation process for revising the Code. When the current Code was introduced consultation had been minimal and the Code has caused huge concern to the profession as a whole, particularly in relation to Clause 20 (risk communication) and Clause 45 (patient modesty).

This is the key document as everything else refers to it. It is against the Code that we are judged in disciplinary hearings and it vital that everyone in the profession takes part in the debate, to ensure that the new Code of Practice will be appropriate for Osteopathy across the entire spectrum of practice and for a number of years to come. This is your chance to effect an important change that will shape the profession over the next decade.

We will be watching this one very carefully, and we are hopeful that, when the new Code is produced we will not have to publish the numerous articles in Osteopathy Today and on the website, with advice on how to comply with the Code, in practice which we have had to produce for the current Code.

Support from the BOA

The website and past copies of OT have a wealth of useful guidance on how to comply with the current Code of Practice and S2K documents. It also has advice on managing complaints and draft information for new patients. We urge members to make use of all the information on the website.

We will develop resources to help members through the Revalidation process, and, if necessary, additional advice relating to the new Practice Framework and Code of Practice. We are also determined that the approach that is finally adopted in the Practice Framework will consider the issues raised by the full range of the profession, that it does not limit practice and that it does not split the profession.