Andrews Clinic of Natural Therapies
A Registered Osteomyology Clinic
Established 1985
Andrews Clinic of Natural TherapiesA Registered Osteomyology Clinic Established 1985
|
| This table of contents has been written so that the public realise the injustice's that the GOsC (General Osteopathic Council), placed on a high number of safe, competent Osteopathic practitioners, because they did not fit what can only be described as their 'old boys' paradigm.That it really was and is a Government Quango without proper regulation and evaluation for the registration of Osteopaths. That the Government has tried to keep this under 'wraps' by side lining an adjournment debate in Parliament, about the very true facts of the registration process and its injustices. 'Educationally you cannot safely evaluate something that isn't defined or has no definition.' But the GOsC educationally, have confounded everyone, by actually doing this ??? Maybe as a registering organisation they should also define the word 'safe' which is what they state, but don't obviously put into practice as you will read by using what can only be described as cowboy evaluators / assessors with no 'proper' educational qualifications other than their Osteopathic denominations, which were the same as the people that they were assessing, interviewing and condemning without a definition to work with, read on ... Table of Contents
What is the Osteopathic Act ... ?Its an Act of Parliament for the registration of Osteopaths. The registration process was carried through with the GOsC (General Osteopathic Council), who's remit was to assess the safety, competence, and legal practice of practicing Osteopaths, to register and regulate Osteopathic practitioners. Back to table of contents
How was this process accomplished...?Practicing Osteopaths were told / informed to apply for registration via the GOsC. Through submission of a Professional Portfolio Profile to the GOsC. This documentation was produced by the GOsC and it was obligatory to purchase the professional portfolio. The cost of this was sold for a 'handsome' fee to the prospective applicants for £150-00 Then an 'extra' fee of £350-00 was paid up front for it to be evaluated and assessed (see 'amateur' assessors later). It is also on a fine point that the GOsC may have broken the Trade Descriptions Act, as in its pages it describes criteria for membership that WAS NOT adhered to by them or their assessors. Back to table of contents
By what criteria were applicants assessed ...?The criteria of assessment was 'formulated' by the GOsC, with an educationalist who resigned because it was probably found to be educationally unsound and if it were allowed to be challenged would most likely be thrown out. Back to table of contents
What do you mean educationally unsound ...?Well for anything to be assessed properly, you will agree that you need an assessment criteria, which may sound a bit strange until you read ... That Osteopathic treatment has not been defined as to what it is or does, even now ? So how can it be assessed either clinically or educationally except off someone's own pre-conceived concepts, as to what they might be ? Which as we all know could be anything that you could care to think of ? Even NVQ qualifications insist on definitions of abilities to do whatever it is. Imagine doing a course and at the end of it legally you don't know what you do or what you are other than a title, that as a practitioner you and your patients / clients pay £750-00 per annum for the privilege of what ? Back to table of contents
But wasn't the GOsC supposedly overseeing this as an elected Council...? The GOsC was not an elected Council by the Practitioners of the Osteopathic Professions. They were nominated it seems by each other or a friend of a friend. They even had a 'lay member' on the Council who was a retired Osteopath. The definition of 'lay' means that the person doesn't really know anything professionally about the area that the particular body is working with or on, so that they can be supposedly objective as a 'lay' member of the public or words to that effect. The reader is left to make up their own minds about the GOsC's definition by using a retired Osteopath, of the same 'ilk' as the Council members ? Back to table of contents
Well lets get on with it, they were all assessed weren't they ....?Yes they were, by each other, and guess what no failures or refusal of registration, or mentoring for any of the non elected GOsC Council members ! It was also known that certain groups that 'incidentally were trained at certain schools of certain Council members' were not asked to attend interviews. That sounds a bit funny, well not if you as a practicing Osteopath who had to go through the interview process without the protection of the 'old boys' network ? With interviewers that can only be described as clowns in assessment educationally, see below. Back to table of contents
So the prospective applicants for registration were interviewed, what's wrong with that ....?Nothing if you take into account that at least 2 of the interviewers had no educational qualifications in assessment or interview procedures, other than a possible maximum of 3 days training to assess and interview who should be admitted to the register and who should not ?
Even though the practitioner may have been working professionally as an Osteopath many of them for over 15 years safely with no insurance claims made against them or their practice. What's more the practitioners were told it was just an interview, but really it was an interrogation by inexperienced assessors who decided whether you could be become one of the 'clan', sorry registered Osteopaths. The term 'lambs to the slaughter' comes to mind, by people that went through this harrowing experience. Back to table of contents
Well surely something was done about this ...?Not by the GOsC it wasn't, it took an honest MP Mr. Roger Gale. to ask these questions and a lot more about the GOsC and its procedures via a Parliamentary adjournment debate. Like the person who refused to attend an interview because they had a badly broken ankle / leg at the time that the GOsC decided that they should attend. The applicant was then informed by letter that if they had attended the interview they would have failed it even though they had been in practice 15 years safely without any insurance claims made against them, with a large patient referral base without advertising their skills. You know this sort of fair medieval objectiveness, it was once called a 'ducking stool', if you lived you were guilty, but if you drowned you had obviously been innocent and had been an Osteopath ?
Previous to this, the same practitioner was informed that they hadn't sent in their application / portfolio etc., and basically called a liar, even though proof of posting was presented and available via recorded delivery to the GOsC ! The practitioner wasn't the only one subjected to this loss of documentation. The practitioner then had to send a second copy, and while it was in transit received a correspondence 6 months after the first 'lost' submission that the GOsC had found it ? For the record all correspondence and documentation was sent via recorded delivery, so even though they said they hadn't received it the proof was that they actually had. As a final insult to injury the practitioner was invited back for an interview 6 months later, after being told by GOsC correspondence previously, that they would fail the interview, without even having been interviewed - seems really objective and fair, at least they didn't threaten using the ducking stool !
The adjournment debate for some reason was shall we say 'sidelined', and never completed, it did not come to any conclusions about the way in which the GOsC had conducted and implemented its registration procedures. Even though the GOsC had a number of years to do so, before implementation of the Osteopathic Act. Steps are now being taken to try and re-open the debate and find out the 'true facts' not what the GOsC put forward to Parliament initially which was shall we say found to be wanting at the very least. Or the Governments obvious smoke screen in not reaching conclusions about the GOsC procedures in implementing the registration process. Back to table of contents
So what's the conclusion then....?That the GOsC was a badly conceived quango, and even though it had the time to make informed decisions about what an Osteopath is and does, it did not (and still hasn't). The GOsC then had the audacity to implement its own agendas as can be seen even today as to not knowing what an Osteopath is or does by stating that they assessed practitioners for safety, competency and legality, of what and just as importantly with whom ?
If your a Chiropractor or Physiotherapist, you may possibly find this funny. Except the GOsC is now making attempts to define what an Osteopath is, after all these years and has refused registration to some very good and also well known practitioners. You know the practitioners who worked and built the title Osteopath and were then thrown away like a disposable nappy. What does this mean, well basically that you will not be allowed by law to do or practice what an Osteopath is finally defined as having the skills to do - well it might be manipulations or might be something else ?
This will mean that you are unable to practice these 'defined skills' without being a registered Osteopath as you will not be covered by insurance indemnity !
Which brings to mind that as a Registered Osteopath, on a fine point of law, you may be practicing illegally under the trade descriptions act, as a registered Osteopath as they have no definition as to what they are or do ? Are they breaking the Trade Descriptions Act ? Back to table of contents
So is this sour grapes and what have you done ....?I personally refused to register or go for an interview with the GOsC and became a Registered Osteomyologist. As a Registered Osteomyologist your skills in other areas are also recognised as being part of my patients assessments and treatments.
Sour grapes or bad practitioner, I think not as I was involved in the training of some colleagues who are now Registered Osteopaths with the GOsC, they haven't a definition of who they are, and pay for the privilege of not knowing this by paying a fee of £750-00 per annum, which is by the way offset against patient fee's.
Since 1985 I haven't had one insurance claim made against me or my practice, the GOsC cannot make that claim about some of their 'safe, competent, legal practitioners', since registration. As some their registered practitioners are being taken to court for various claims. But then again what would you expect when they were assessed by amateurs and what can only be described as a quango organisation in the first place.
Some of the applications for registration included doctors, who copied / forged their portfolios and were accepted even though the GOsC knew and were informed about it, action taken by the GOsC, not much ! There were also groups of practitioners who did the same. So when you next see a registered Osteopath ask them what the GOsC's or better still what Parliaments definition is of what an Osteopath is and does, or better still ask your MP ?
Some of the remarks may offend other practitioners, especially Osteopaths but if you were in the same position as the hundreds of 'condemned' practitioners by the GOsC would you stay silent ? As a Registered Osteopath you also need to ask the question why you pay £750-00 per annum for a title, with no definition of what you are, other than a nomadic practitioner ? Maybe because of court cases that are being brought against their registered members the GOsC will have to define what an Osteopath is or does ? They cannot claim that the practitioner did not use Osteopathic techniques as they haven't defined what they do, and assessed them as a Governing Governmental body !
The GOsC's standard quote that is always given is that : 'Through a detailed evaluation process, applicants need to demonstrate to the Registrar that they are in safe, competent and legal practice'. Pitty they didn't apply the same criteria to themselves and their amateur assessors !
This syndrome is commonly known as having a strong farmyard smell, with registered nomadic tendencies, especially after having had 10 years to evaluate and establish guidelines !
The legality issue for one, is a strange statement to be made ? As even the GOsC Council members according to this statement had been practicing illegally, in fact everyone had, but then what do you expect from amateur pretenders to the 'throne' of power via registration. Back to table of contents
The sad aims and objectives obtained ...?The overall aims and objectives of the GOsC were to bring the various Osteopathic practitioner bodies together, under one heading, namely the GOsC. What actually happened could really only be described as 'ethnic cleansing' of 'old rivals', by abusing Parliamentary law for their own agendas and purposes. Consequently, practitioners that had earned their DO and practiced safely and competently with insurance for many years were 'cleansed' out of the 'new' system under the very banners of safety, competence, and legality. I wonder why it didn't apply to the medical doctors who cheated and were knowingly accepted by the GOsC and still are registered even though it was brought to the GOsC's attention. What happened to the banners of safety, competence, and legality ?
There are now 3 sets of practitioners, of whom all were practicing Osteopaths. Sadly in one sense this isn't the case for 2 of the groups who have found new titles. Even without registration these practitioners cannot have their DO taken from them, nor has it changed the way in which they worked professionally for many years, safely, competently and with full practice insurance.
Maybe the registered Osteopaths will awaken to the GOsC dictatorship and start wagging the tail instead of the tail wagging the dog ! Or waken up to the fact that no members means no GOsC.
I wonder if the extortionate ongoing fee's charged for registration had anything to do with the GOsC as an organisation at its inauguration, being in debt to the tune of over 2 million pounds ? I also wonder who bailed them out of that mess, as even with extortionate membership fee's it didn't accumulate to the debt incurred ? Maybe that's why the Government had and still has a 'vested' interest in the GOsC ? Back to table of contents
A recent times newspaper article about practitioners ...?Why the question mark above ? Well if you remember the GOsC supposedly checked everyone out for safety, competency and legality (their flagship statement) used with public enquiries etc., now read on .....
Times Guide research questions competence of selected practitioners.Michael Endacott of the ICM comments on a recent Times assessment of acupuncturists, chiropractors, herbalists, homoeopaths and osteopaths.Hundreds of complementary medicine practitioners are potentially putting their patients’ lives at risk by failing to follow even basic safety procedures, concludes research published in a two-part guide in The Times (10th January 04). A comprehensive study of more than 4,500 therapists offering a range of complementary therapies (acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal medicine, homeopathy and osteopathy) found a large number not taking medical histories from their patients and failing to stop treatments that didn’t work. Most did not contact family doctors as a matter of course when treating a patient, while many others did not keep up with the latest developments in their field, according to The Times. The research was carried out by the independent healthcare company, Dr Foster, and published as two Guides under the regular Body and Soul Saturday section of the paper. Roger Taylor, research director of Dr Foster, is quoted as saying that the study is intended to provide the public and GPs with information on which therapists meet the best professional standards. "This is the first time such a study has been undertaken which, given the level of interest in complementary therapies, is surprising," says Mr Taylor. This Dr Foster study claims to show that just 10% of homeopaths and 16% of herbalists will stop treatment after two months if it has failed to work. Only 11% of osteopaths provided information routinely to patients’ GPs of the treatment they were giving. The Guide suggests that by far the best of the alternative practitioners were acupuncturists. But even then only 41% routinely gave the correct information to patients about treatments. Only 13% of herbalists properly labeled remedies given to patients. Of the five criteria measured by Dr Foster, none of the 800 homeopaths and herbalists surveyed performed adequately in all categories. More than 20% of osteopaths and 10% of chiropractors satisfied only one criterion. It appears that Dr Foster developed a series of questions to establish the practitioner’s credentials and competence. Consumers were asked what information they would like to have, then questions were written on this basis in association with Exeter University. The Guide then states, "The questionnaires were then circulated for consultation with the Department of Health, the Foundation of Integrated Medicine and the NHS Alliance, as well as the practitioners’ organisations mentioned in the guide and their members." The ICM, who were not consulted, has asked Dr Foster to supply a copy of the questionnaire but, at the time of writing, it has not been received. The ICM believes that a full investigation should be conducted into the terms of reference used for this report since osteopathy and chiropractic have both been regulated by statutory Acts since 1993/4. Further, what are the rights of the patient and did the questionnaire reflect the current practical conditions within which complementary practitioners must work? Web Site Comment : Don't worry the GOsC made sure you were being treated safely, competently and legally in this way it seems, as these practitioners were assessed and regulated by them as a Governing Governmental body. They checked the above people for you mmmmmmmmmmm ! Objectively you cannot take a 'proper' case history and treat a person who has to undress and dress within a short period of time, well not unless your a GOsC practitioner from all accounts according to the above report.
Does this sound like the same GOsC governing body has been successful in carrying out their remit of 'safety, competence and legality' ? Or does this sound like the GOsC using its own agendas as described above. That the registration process was carried out by amateurs with no definition of what an Osteopath is, by assessing practitioners with no educational definitions, which means that any possible guidelines or for that matter agendas that they had were effectively redundant. Incidentally the GOsC still hasn't defined what an Osteopath is, even after 10 years, they are trying but still finding it hard ?
The GOsC still hasn't a CPD program (Continuing Professional Development) other than add hock seminars and their AGM, that are not obligatory as such ? The AGM from all accounts is sadly attended by their membership, so doesn't really count anyway.
The diversity of practitioners and ways of treating can really be summed up in a Chinese philosophical statement ' there are many ways to climb a mountain'. It seems that the GOsC is still wondering about how to start climbing the mountain ? A climber is a person who climbs mountains and cliffs etc., with an objective of reaching the top.
A GOsC Osteopath is a person who is and does what, with what objective ?
The GOsC now use the new found ethnic cleansing power to stop any practitioner that doesn't belong to their 'quango', sorry registration body, from calling themselves an Osteopath.
But, what they didn't take into account was patients and their referrals going back to the practitioners who still provide the same services under a different title because they are safe, competent and legally insured practicing practitioners with multiple skills and a DO. Back to table of contents
|
Please send mail with questions or comments about this web site via the enquiries page. |
