This document is a huge improvement on S2K: it is clear and it addresses pretty much all the objections I had to S2K. I always felt that the S2K looked like someone’s picture of the perfect osteopath – wise, massively experienced, hugely talented, a paragon of scholastic endeavour with knowledge encompassing the whole of medical science, the whole of every other healthcare approach, computer science and electronics, not to mention the Law and Politics as well, just for good measure. This impossible ideal was then set as the minimum standard all osteopaths were required to attain.
In stark contrast, the new OPS, while setting very high standards, sets a level that is reasonable and acknowledges the role of osteopaths’ professional and clinical judgement. If this is the benchmark for all GOsC’s consultations and regulatory approach, then I think we have a chance for the profession to make real progress over the next few years.
Dear Martin ,
it is a huge relief to read your comments and put so clearly the things I have been thinking for some time. The bench mark was set impossibly high and the whole issue of consent leading to a situation where it ends up with patients not receiving treatment which could be immensely helpful to them. I know of at least 5 osteopaths who have ceased to do hvla on the neck as a result of the informed consent issue and have reports of students qualifying and unable to do these techniques.
Thank you Ingrid.
If enough Osteopaths make the point then the GOsC WILL listen – I am reasonably sure of that given the way they have responded to some other issues, but a lot of Osteopaths need to engage with this process in oeder to make sure the GOsC has views which are obviously representative of the profession as a whole.