Update from RAMP

Update from RAMP

Release date 5/4/21

RAMP have been made aware of a couple of issues around title use so, as a reminder, RAMP Registrants who are not regulated with HCPC,GCC or GOSC may use the term chiropractor, osteopath or physiotherapist ONLY if it is prefixed with an animal term.eg equine, canine or animal etc. It must be made clear on any website, leaflet or other marketing that you do not use these techniques on humans. Failure to do so could result in prosecution as this is a criminal offence.
Please ensure that you comply with the law as it applies to you.
Thank you

To clarify the law as it stands here is a copy of the Barristers advice that RAMP commissioned. It makes it clear that the current laws around protected titles only cover human practice BUT that if they are used in the animal field it must be made clear that the practitioner does not treat humans unless also qualified to do so.

1. Introduction: The Issues. I have been asked to advise upon the scope of the protection of title for Chiropractors, Osteopaths and Physiotherapist (“the professions”). Specifically, I have been asked whether the protection of title which exists for these professions applies when the practice of the individual chiropractor, physiotherapist or osteopaths relates to and is carried out upon, an animal and not a human patient.

2. This Advice has been commissioned by the Register of Animal Musculoskeletal
Practitioners (“RAMP”), which is concerned to understand the legal parameters in which its members operate. RAMP has established a voluntary Register of professionals who are trained in chiropractic, osteopathic and physiotherapy techniques and treatments for animals. They are regarded by RAMP as one occupation, i.e., animal musculoskeletal practitioners.

3. Summary of Advice.
a. The Acts and the Order governing the practice of osteopaths, chiropractors and
physiotherapists are concerned exclusively with the regulation of the treatment of human patients (paragraphs 9 – 21 below); Legal Advice, 28 January 2020 2
b. As a result, the titles concerned are not protected titles, outside of the context of the treatment of human patients. There is no statutory or other legally binding regulatory framework governing their use outside of that context;
c. In my view, provided that any description makes it plain that the practitioner does not purport to be qualified to, or to treat, human patients, and is not on the Register of those professionals who would do so, an exclusively ‘animal’ practitioner may use the title ‘physiotherapist’, ‘osteopath’ and ‘chiropractor’ provided that these terms are always accompanied by a clear and proper explanation of their animal practice so as to make these vital distinctions.
d. The question of what is a sufficiently clear explanation is a question of fact. It would be for the individual practitioner to satisfy himself or herself that the rules on the protection of title had not been infringed. Clearly, a protocol which had been agreed with the three regulatory bodies concerned with human treatment would be the best way forward. I would suggest that merely using the title ‘animal physiotherapist’, etc, (or ‘equine chiropractor’, to take a similar example) may not be enough to achieve complete clarity – it ought to be accompanied by an
explanation, on websites and other literature, of the distinction and the fact that the
practitioner does not purport to be qualified to, nor offer treatment to human patients.

The RAMP team

Important Update from the RCVS and DEFRA

regarding consent for Veterinary Osteopaths, Chiropractors and Physiotherapists to Treat Animals

Important information for Owners, vets and practitioners, there has been a clarification regarding consent from vets for #animalosteopath, #animalchiropractor and #aniamlphysiotherapist practitioners to treat animals.The update from #RCVS can be found on their website at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk

The following update has come from RAMP (#RAMP #RAMPregister)

www.rampregister.org
RCVS Guidance clarification for MSK Practitioners. The following Guidance has been passed by the RCVS Standards Committee and will be circulated among the veterinary profession:

a) Musculoskeletal therapists are part of the vet-led team. Animals cared for or treated by musculoskeletal therapists must be registered with a veterinary surgeon. Musculoskeletal therapists carry out a range of manipulative therapies, including physiotherapy, osteopathy and chiropractic therapy.

b) As per the Veterinary Surgery (Exemptions) Order 2015, remedial treatment by ‘physiotherapy’ requires delegation by a veterinary surgeon who has first examined the animal. ‘Physiotherapy’ is interpreted as including all kinds of manipulative therapy. It therefore includes osteopathy and chiropractic but would not, for example, include acupuncture or aromatherapy. It is up to the professional judgment of the veterinary surgeon to determine whether and when a clinical examination should be repeated before musculoskeletal treatment is continued.

c) The delegating veterinary surgeon should ensure, before delegation, that they are confident that the musculoskeletal therapist is appropriately qualified and competent; indicators can include membership of a voluntary register with associated standards of education and conduct, supported by a disciplinary process. As the RCVS does not regulate musculoskeletal therapists it cannot recommend specific voluntary registers.

d) Musculoskeletal maintenance care for a healthy animal, for instance massage, does not require delegation by a veterinary surgeon. However, the animal must still be registered with a veterinary surgeon. Maintenance should cease and the owner of the animal should be asked to take their animal to a veterinary surgeon for clinical examination at the first sign that there may be any underlying injury, disease or pathology. Alternatively, the musculoskeletal therapist may ask the client for formal consent to disclose any concerns to the veterinary surgeon that has their animal under their care.

This has come about as a result of RAMP Council consultation with DEFRA and the RCVS around clarification for veterinary consent for Competition and Maintenance Care.

To reiterate, the only difference to current practice is in point d). An animal declared healthy by the owner, in cases where care is given to maintain good health and optimise competition performance, can be seen without specific Veterinary referral with the caveats stated. This covers the areas of Maintenance care and Competition care ONLY.

This clarification will ease the current legal grey area and hope it will improve communication between MSK Practitioners and the Veterinary Profession. ANY pathology must be reported back to the animals registered vet immediately.