Acutely aware of the pressure its on, The GCC latest bulletin makes a few announcements that will please the chiropractic profession and finishes with the scare story Statutory Self regulation is under threat. Its the strategy taken from the “how to boil frogs Manual”
Peter Dixon used this tactic a lot in 2008 going around to all the conference telling all and sundry how he spent his professional career fighting for chiropractic and how “he did not want to be regulated by physiotherapists”, having secretly appointed a physiotherapist Graham Pope as chair of the GCCs education committee.
Sadam Hussein himself could not have been much worse for the chiropractic profession than Peter Dixon has been. What should the profession do? I dont know but I hope it will be a more inclusive transparent process that what brought us to where we are to day.
This public announcement states the GCC want to “reduc the initial registration fee at the earliest opportunity”. Privately they are saying to the CHRE thats impossible because they have to get back into the black and will have to put up registration fees. I will post those documents next week.
First the GCC news on revalidation:
“Based on the evidence derived from the consultation on a proposed scheme of revalidation for the chiropractic profession, Council decided that it would not be able to satisfy the test of “…significant added value..”no further work, therefore, will be undertaken on revalidation
Enabling Excellence: Autonomy and Accountability for Healthcare Workers, Social Workers and Social Care Workers (February 2011)
Council noted the very strong and clear message from Government on the need to reduce the costs of regulation of health and social care professionals and the view that the simplest means of achieving this would be to merge regulators into higher volume organisations. There was recognition of the disruption and professional concern that centrally imposed consolidation can cause. In light of this, as an alternative to such structural change, the Command Paper stated that by June 2011 CHRE is to advise Ministers on the options for efficiency savings across regulatory bodies. Council will ensure that it provides CHRE with its views, to inform that advice.
The Command Paper also states that Government will consider sympathetically any proposals from the regulatory bodies for voluntary mergers will revisit in three years the issue of consolidating the sector into a more cost effective configuration if the regulators have been unable to secure significant cost reductions by then.
Council’s preliminary view is that its options include
1. pushing even harder for legislative change, so as to achieve consensual disposal for the Investigating Committee and case management provisions for the Professional Conduct Committee, thereby reducing the ‘fitness to practise’ component of regulatory costs
2. reducing the initial registration fee at the earliest opportunity
3. conducting a feasibility study on sharing functions with another/other regulatory body(ies)
4. conducting a feasibility study on a possible merger with another/other regulatory body(ies)
It all sounds wonderful and the associations will be sharing this with there members and in a corner on page 13 there will be a notice that a few more chiropractors were admonished.. The latest 4 worked together at the Broad gate Chiropractic clinic in Leeds, I dont understand how new grads and the like can be held responsible for someone’s webs site. They may not ever have looked at it.
Imagine some kid starting out delighted to get their first job and the GCC expects them to tell the boss, you will have to change your website before I can start? I was at college with one of them Chris Binks a Yorkshire man who could run but never remembered to lift his head before crossing the ball, that was when I started loosing my hair.
Below is the web site. Read it first then check the PCC decision and wonder how did they make the interpretations they did. Work out for your self whether being associated with this website amounts to “ Unprofessional Conduct” and warrants an admonishment. If this case had been heard in public do you think the GCC would have been able to get a chiropractor to testify that Chris Binks and his colleagues were deliberately trying to mislead patients and alarm them??? (The Pages are not in the right order)
