Introducing the Guild / AOA Risk Management Advisory Committee

By Michael Woger, Risk Manager, Guild Insurance

Since 2008, the Guild / AOA Risk Management Advisory Committee has convened to examine claims and complaints made against osteopaths, with the aim of identifying the risk exposures in the profession.

By creating an awareness of the potential risks in osteopathic practice, the Committee looks to identify opportunities for osteopaths to improve their practices and minimise claims and complaints. The aim is to protect the reputation of osteopaths and the profession as a whole, while also ensuring the stability of insurance premiums.

The Committee contributes to articles in AOA publications, and risk management seminars, such as those held by AOA throughout Australia in 2009, to draw member awareness to risk management issues in osteopathy.

Another benefit of this collaboration is that the osteopaths in the committee have been actively involved in educating Guild in understanding the practice of osteopathy. Developing such a close working relationship with a profession is unusual for an insurer but Guild Insurance views this as a mutually beneficial process that helps us to better understand and defend our osteopathic clients.

All Committee members are bound by confidentiality agreements. Although claims data is de-identified, this is just another level of protection, in case the details within the claims reviewed could reveal a person’s identity.

Where are claims against osteopaths coming from?

You may not be aware that claims and complaints against osteopath do occur on a regular basis. Guild has received on average around one and a half claims against osteopaths every fortnight over the past five years, not including notifications of incidents. This is a number that has increased in more recent times, particularly in relation to board complaints.

It’s a trend that is not unique to osteopathy, it’s one that is being experienced across other health professions. Registration Boards are seen to offer the path of least resistance to aggrieved patients. There are no costs involved for the complainant and boards are obliged to investigate and respond. Where decisions are made in favour of the aggrieved party by these regulatory bodies, the likelihood of a civil suit against the osteopath is also increased. It makes a strong case for osteopaths needing quality support from their insurer in disciplinary matters.

The Committee would like to share the following high-level information on the origins of claims to raise awareness of some of the key drivers of claims and complaints.

Of all claims received over the past 5 years :

• 28% in relation to alleged injury exacerbation.
• 8% in relation to board matters (response to claims made by and via registration boards).
• 6.5% in relate to allegations of cervical injuries.
• 6% in relation to alleged fractures, primarily of the ribs.
• 4% in relation to alleged in appropriate conduct.
• 4% in relation to alleged breaches of privacy.

Other claims received include general dissatisfaction with care, misleading advertising, falls from equipment, and allegations of negligent treatment.

The Committee is finding that inadequacies in communication – in the areas of pre-care, in patient consent, and records kept, are a common factor in claims or complaints made against osteopaths. Omissions in these vital areas of patient interaction have led to negative perceptions of the quality of the care provided, and proved a catalyst for claims or complaints. We recommend that osteopaths give renewed focus to this area of their professional practice and take a proactive approach to the management of risk and help to protect their valuable professional reputation.