GOsC response to Department of Health and Social Care consultation: Regulating anaesthesia and physician associates
In May 2023, GOsC responded to the Department of Health and Social Care consultation on regulating anesthesia and physician associates.
Key points we raised:
- There is no timetable for when the Osteopaths Act 1993 may be reformed. We have advocated for timings for all regulators to be clarified and expedited to avoid a two-tier system of regulation. We think this would lead to inconsistency for health professionals and patients and lock us into outdated legislation for a significant period of time.
- We think patients/service users are mentioned in too limited a way in the Order. We consider that the partnership between the patient and the osteopath is an important part of clinical care and health professional regulation, as well as being a necessary component of public confidence. Therefore we have asked that references to patients and service users be strengthened.
- When the legislation is amended, the GOsC will no longer have a statutory duty to develop the profession; however, our view is that this would not prevent the GOsC from continuing to support the osteopathic profession as it delivers high-quality patient care and that our activities would be unlikely to change and we welcome the clarity this change would bring as it aligns GOsC with the other healthcare regulators.
- There are no current plans for GOsC to regulate businesses. However, we would welcome the option to be able to regulate businesses in the future. This request is about ensuring that there are no gaps in the regulatory framework for osteopaths that could inhibit trust and assurance in the profession in future. The development of any policy in this area would take place only with a clear need from the profession and patients; would need to be evidence-informed, and developed through consultation with osteopaths, patients and other stakeholders; and would take time.
- We welcome reforms to our fitness to practise legislation as these would ensure a more proportionate, efficient and less adversarial system for osteopaths and patients; however, we have some concerns in specific areas. These include:
- Grounds for action: We consider that health must be a separate ground for concern. This will ensure patient safety and public protection by ensuring that there is no future risk to the public if the registrant is not demonstrating insight but has not yet harmed a patient. We also consider that the fact of a conviction must be a separate ground. This follows on from the automatic removal for certain convictions outlined in the Order and will mean that the facts of the conviction do not need to be reheard.
- We do not consider that there is a legal basis to make rules for the ‘initial assessment’ stage of fitness to practise which would mean we would need to refer every concern raised to a case examiner. We do not think this is correct and advocate for an amendment to the Order.
- While we welcome more flexibility in the setting of fees, we are concerned the proposals on registration fee setting may undermine the financial independence of regulators and make it difficult to set registration fees at a consistent level for a sustained period. We do not think this was the intention of the proposal and suggest it should be reviewed again.
- We welcome the proposed reform to the registration sections and consider that the draft order will enable us to streamline elements of our registration processes, removing the need for archaic reference forms, while retaining robust processes for assessing the suitability of an entrant to the Register.
