What we can and cannot help with

What we can investigate

We have a legal responsibility to look at concerns if:

an osteopath’s behaviour falls below the standards set out in our Osteopathic Practice Standards
an osteopath is guilty of professional incompetence because their work fails to meet the standards we set in our Osteopathic Practice Standards
an osteopath is convicted of a crime – if this happens, we will look at the conviction to decide whether it affects the osteopath’s ability to practise
an osteopath’s physical or mental condition is seriously affecting their work – if an osteopath has a health problem, we will consider how it affects their ability to practise.

Our threshold criteria for unacceptable professional conduct explains the types of concerns we cannot investigate, including (but not limited to):

Concerns about fees or the costs of treatment
Concerns made anonymously which cannot be verified by others
Concerns that relate to employment disputes
Concerns that relate to contractual disputes including arrangements for the lease of premises and facilities
Concerns about an osteopath’s personal life (for example those related to divorce proceedings) unless the concerns are about behaviour that is abusive, violent or which could negatively affect the reputation of the profession
Concerns that do not have implications for public protection

If your concern meets the criteria for investigation, please contact us via our online form.

The Threshold Criteria for Unacceptable Professional Conduct was approved by the GOsC Council on 4 February 2015

The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to complainants and registrants, and to the Screeners and Investigating Committee of the General Osteopathic Council (GOsC), about the sorts of matters that will be considered under the GOsC’s fitness to practise procedures.
In line with its overarching objective,1 the fitness to practise procedures of the GOsC are designed to protect the public. They are not intended to serve as a general complaints resolution process, nor are they designed to resolve civil disputes between registrants and patients.
Investigating allegations properly is a resource-intensive process. The public interest requires that such resources should be used effectively to protect the public and should not be diverted towards investigating matters that do not raise cause for concern.
The GOsC considers that this approach is a proportionate response to the volume of complaints it receives, and is consistent with the principle of ‘right touch regulation’ promoted by the Professional Standards Authority.
The GOsC has, in consultation with its stakeholders including public and patient representatives, produced these ‘threshold criteria’.
These criteria will guide the Screeners when determining whether power is given by the 1993 Act to deal with a complaint if it proves to be well founded,2 and will guide the Investigating Committee when determining whether or not there is a ‘case to answer’.

The Osteopaths Act 1993 provides that ‘Unacceptable Professional Conduct’ is ‘conduct which falls short of the standard required of a registered osteopath’.4
It also provides that a failure to comply with any provision of the Code of Practice should be taken into account but shall not, of itself, constitute Unacceptable Professional Conduct.
The threshold for whether or not a complaint or allegation is capable of amounting to Unacceptable Professional Conduct was set out by the High Court in the case of Spencer v the General Osteopathic Council:1
Is the allegation worthy of the moral opprobrium and the publicity which flow from a finding of unacceptable professional conduct?
Applying this threshold, matters that are not usually capable of amounting to Unacceptable Professional Conduct, and that should therefore not generally be referred to the Professional Conduct Committee, include: