“The PCC concluded that its findings established professional incompetence on the part of the Appellant. The Appellant conceded that he did not make full inquiry into his patients’ medical history; he treated all his patients essentially in the same manner and irrespective of the duration and intensity of their pain; that he has a ready-made system for the treatment of everyone’s body but unless the patient’s pain is such that he cannot be manipulated the Appellant would apply his system to him regardless of the results; and that he did not modify his treatment to take account of SW’s medical history. This is in contrast with Mr Piper’s [the expert witness] opinion: ‘There are certainly observations and postural problems that present in practice which could be helped by that type of approach [i.e. the Appellant’s], but patients are all individuals and they all present with a different pathology, different presenting conditions and backgrounds. As a result, it is important for an osteopath to be flexible. You can then gather information about the individual patient which is relevant to their case and formulate a diagnosis based on the information received rather than approaching them with a preconceived idea of what you deem to be wrong’”
“This is the conversation I hold with every new patient with a low back pain…”
“We concluded based upon the evidence that we have heard, in particular from Mr Moody, that the way he conducts his practice relies heavily upon a framework of assessing spinal curves and the observable abnormalities of them. He does not undertake a sufficient comprehensive physical assessment, which may mean that he could miss underlying pathology; we further concluded that by reason of this, he poses a significant risk to patient safety. We would wish to emphasise that there is an important distinction between the treatment of, and the management of, a patient. The management of Mr W’s condition was inappropriate in that Mr Moody was not in a position to rule out contradictions to treatment. We would wish to make clear that osteopaths are not simply concerned with the treatment of musculoskeletal problems but are primary health care providers and are therefore in the front line in terms of the evaluation and diagnosis of any patient’s health status. Mr Moody’s approach to osteopathy does not take account of this. We consider that this is a fundamental flaw in his approach to practice. Further, he appears to have no insight into the deficiencies in his knowledge base and in his approach to practice.”
“We first considered whether an admonishment would be the appropriate sanction and concluded that this matter is too serious for such a disposal. We went on to consider whether a conditions of practice order would be the appropriate sanction, but in particular whether a test of competence could be devised which would address the deficiencies in Mr Moody’s practice. We concluded that the deficiencies in his knowledge base are so extensive that no conditions of practice order could adequately protect the public. The Committee went on to consider whether the suspension of Mr Moody’s registration would achieve the necessary improvement in his practice and would allow him to treat patients safely. We concluded that a period of suspension, whilst it would protect the public in the short term, would not achieve this end. Consequently we concluded that the only way that we could be sure that the public would be properly protected was by ordering the Registrar to remove Mr Moody’s name from the Register. We consider that if Mr Moody was to return to safe practice in the future this would necessitate his acquiring a recognised qualification.”
“The Committee… has read and taken account of the testimonials put forward.”