Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council launch

[Laurie]

CNHC response to the email in circulation.

http://www.cnhc.org.uk/pages/newsManager.cfm?page_id=2&news_id=13

 

[Definitely_Maybe]

Here is a link to the Governments response to a petition against the CNHC and some of its practices....it brought a smile to my face!

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page19607

 

[vorenhutz]

What an interesting discussion.

I would point out a few interesting facts about CNHC. They STILL have only a tiny number of therapists and we are now seven months in! Quite simply no therapist of sound mind would pay hard-earned money to a company that does not bear even a passing resemblance to a 'Regulator'! Why do we think this is?

Could it be that the CNHC, unlike every other 'regulator' in the UK has no voting profession representation on the regulatory board? 'Lay' people in charge of CAM....mmm Nutrition found out fast that the Professions Council has no say at all in the ‘regulation’ of their profession. No wonder they pulled out in Feb.

Could it be because this is just about the worst managed and professionally embarrassing process to be visited upon the CAM profession almost since our inception?

Could it be that disappearing minutes, jobs for the boys, ridiculous claims and preposterous objectives ('10,000 practitioners will register in the first year' – 9,600 to go!) are just too much for even therapists to swallow?

But the top... and this beats the appointment of 'EX' - chair of CThA to two of their 'lay' boards.... the appointment of David Colquhoun to their Conduct and Competence Committee. ....Yes folks, the guy who spends a considerable section of his working life attacking every section of CAM!! No wait... this well-advised 'regulator'; this 'regulator' of our professions…did not know who he was…well, not until after he had been appointed.......!

As for AoR...’Biggest reflexology PA’ - What!? ...(Pssst.. did nobody tell Doreen Baker, their new CEO - who is not even a Reflexologist - about IFR?). Why do you think nobody else is recommending their members to join??

 

[stephen518]

and how do you propose we take CAM forward Yoshin Ryu? Because all I ever seem to hear is people critisising, but not actually putting forth anything constructive that we can build on.

Its very easy to sit behind an anonymous pseudonym and start throwing stones, but not many want to come out in the open and put their money where there mouth is, so to speak.

Each day that I come on here, people know who I am, and if I say something it is because I believe it, and if I am proved to be wrong then I will admit that, but come on, if we want to make CAM a better industry, lets all try and move it forward by giving constructive feedback and ideas....

When you critisise these organisations, you are actually critisising all of us that devote time, energy, and sometimes finances, to make this industry one that is well recognised, highly respected, and well used by both public and state. I do not sit back and quietly let things pass me by, if I see something going on, I will make sure everyone else knows about it, and if things are brought to my attention, then believe me, I will kick up a fuss, whether or not it makes me popular, or brings me critisism....i risk my reputation and livelihood by being quite vocal and sometimes outspoken, but one thing I keep each day is my self respect.

I know that forums are popular because people can post anonymously, but when I see anonymous postings from people just attacking and sticking the boot in, then I always think that there is some ulterior motive and one that is not always to the good of the majority of us.

 

[Evja Teacher]

Thanks Sportstherapy must say that I think the anonymity of this type of forum fosters open discussion and removes the verbal bullying that can sometimes be attributed to the 'I hold-this-position-and-thus-my-opinion-should-carry-weight' argument. – Not suggesting you are attempting to act in a bullying manner but like most individuals on this site and others, I see it as appropriate that I voice my opinions with the same equality of value as others – anonymity in place.


Firstly let me say that if you are coming on here every day and hearing only criticism of the CNHC does that not make you think there may be a problem? What you are referring to is a large number of people demonstrating that they are in opposition to your view that CNHC is an appropriate regulator for our professions.


OK, so let's seek your specific input. What do you feel about the fact that only 400 or so people joining? Against the statement of 10,000 in the first year? It does seem to demonstrate the level of support.


What do you feel about there being no 'voting voice' for the therapist on the regulatory board?
Why do you think no other regulator in the UK is structured like the CNHC?
What do you feel about an ardent critic of CAM being appointed by CNHC?


Have you not seen the GRCCT (General Regulatory Council for Complementary Therapies)? Whilst CNHC have been getting bashed for trying to remove CAM from the regulation of CAM and making more stupid statements than Tommy Cooper, these guys have just been getting on with the job. Have look at their website www.GRCCT.org I stopped counting their registrants when I got over 3000...and there were plenty of areas to go! Now read the numbers carefully that is 3000 against 400. Smelling of coffee comes to mind.


I went to a meeting of one of the Skills Sector Councils...GRCCT were there. I went to a meeting of my local Primary Care Trust...GRCCT were there. A Hospice Association meeting...GRCCT are there. … My role took me to Scotland to a meeting to do with education in Scotland.....and guess who was there...GRCCT.


You see there is something constructive going on in our professions. What is being demonstrated on this forum and many like it, is that a few hundred massage therapists have been mislead into believing that CNHC was a way forward - Not too suprised to discover that Maggie Dunn the current CEO/Registrar of CNHC used to chair the General Massage Therapy Council - What I think you may wish to consider Sportstherapy is that the vast majority of professions and practitioners have looked at CNHC and then chosen a much more standard and apparently more productive approach toward taking CAM forward.


Being constructive – use whatever your position is at CNHC to get them out of the embarassment their actions are causing our profession and into something constructive and properly run. Go and talk to GRCCT, on bended knee if you have to. Get them to bring the CNHC massage therapists in from the cold.

 

[Alex Rider]

im not going to go into the old GRCCT v CNHC debate. My experience of both couldnt have been more different. I applied to register with GRCCT. 6 weeks later, after half a dozen emails, letters and phone calls, I hadnt received anything except I was around £30 down. It was only when I requested and received a refund from Paypal that I got a phone call from CNHC, and lo and behold a certificate. CNHC, register, pay, done.

I understand also about anonymity, however, there comes a time when you have to raise your head above the parapet, and take what is thrown at you, otherwise its all just anonymous ranting and you can say what you like wether it is truthful or not.

I intend to do whatever I can to make sure that CNHC does its best for the profession believe me.

On a last point. If an organisation puts lies on its website about another organisation, it is libel and they could be subject to legal proceedings. Its funny that there was something on GRCCT website about CNHC, which was very quickly removed when the threat of legal action was mentioned. Now why would they remove it if it was true? I remember when I was threatened with libel action for something that I had put on my website, I knew it was true so I kept it on, and as much as the other people huffed and puffed and threatened, I kept it on, because it was true, and I wanted everyone to be aware of it.

I am not knocking GRCCT, as much as I have taken flak from all angles for supporting CNHC, but I am always going to support an organisation that will benefit me, and when the Department of Health gives a directive to all NHS trusts to only use CNHC registered therapists, and the Government states that it supports CNHC and recommends the public use only CNHC registered therapists, then why wouldnt I join them and support them?

 

[xoPink]

Sports you just keep waffling off, without anything constructive. Why do you not simply offer your opinion on some very simple questions:

What do you feel about the fact that only 400 or so people joining? Against the statement of 10,000 in the first year? It does seem to demonstrate the level of support.


What do you feel about there being no 'voting voice' for the therapist on the regulatory board?
Why do you think no other regulator in the UK is structured like the CNHC?
What do you feel about an ardent critic of CAM being appointed by CNHC?

This is not giving you flack. I am guenuinly interested in how the above can be reconciled with 'the best for the profession'

As an aside, and speaking as one who works at a reasonably high level in an NHS trust I can assure you that no-such directive has been issued to trusts in the use of CAM practitioners. With only 400 or so massage therapists on the CNHC register I should think we would be a bit stretched if they did

 

[Shafiq Hud]

Yoshin, please check earlier in this post, the link is there.

As for your statement "Go and talk to GRCCT, on bended knee if you have to. Get them to bring the CNHC massage therapists in from the cold"

On bended knee??? How arrogant. And why should I answer questions from a faceless person, who is just quoting the same old drivel that has been going round internet by other faceless people??

As for me waffling...I like how its waffle when I state the poor service I received from GRCCT, and when I state things like some of the misleading information they have had to take off their website.

If you are so high up in an NHS trust then surely you arent scared of a little flak??

As far as I am concerned, I have made my choice, and others will make theirs.

If people choose to listen to faceless people, and emails that circulate, then that is their choice....

Re the questions you raise, I shall give my opinion.

A regulatory board looks after the public...it does not look after the therapy or the therapist, it is there with the sole purpose of protecting the public. The government has made this clear.

Therapists register with the regulatory board, to show the public that they come up to the high standards.

Why then, should a therapist need a voting voice? And that is not a rhetorical question.

Regarding the set up of CNHC, which other regulators are you comparing it to?

If an ardent critic of CAM was appointed, I would want to know if they still had those views, and that is what I intend to find out.

 

[seven]

Here is the link again. And before you jump on my previous posting, no it doesnt tell all NHS trusts to use ONLY CNHC registered therapists, but what they do say is clear on the link.

 

[Magic But Mediocre]

So if the regulatory bodies are there to protect the interests of the public, not the therapists, then why is it that the therapists have to pay to maintain the regulators and not the public?

 

[kveiaujvizmisqeta]

If I want to work for the NHS or want to rely on referrals from them, I’ll jump through their accreditation hoops. But otherwise, it’s my money to spend on what training I see fit. Therapists in private practice stay in business because they have trained well in a variety of ways, and have good client skills, and run their practices as a business, not because they have box ticked someone else’s idea of good training or pay up to get their name on some register.

A regulatory body can only look after the public if the public knows about it, and someone pays for it, and if I’m paying for it I also expect it to help to protect me as a therapist. Otherwise the government should fund it.

The HPC (which even now hardly anyone in the public has ever heard of, and probably care about even less) provides enough evidence for me to know that however admirable the motives, it is unworkable, leads to a lot of professional posturing, and risks bringing the very professions we are trying to protect or promote into disrepute, because regulation doesn't stop people doing unethical things, whatever the code of conduct says. I have only got to look at what happened when a small element of a certain regulated profession went after individual targets from a similar unregulated one to want to stay out of it.... I am not a member of either profession, and for a time I was personally and professionally intimidated when an (incorrect as it happens) “we know who you are” thread was started on another forum supposedly for respectable professionals after I raised concerns on a subsequently moderated thread here. I therefore have very good reasons for choosing to remain anonymous.

If I find myself regulated I may find history repeating itself in that a certain element of the profession will resent paying fees to belong to the organisation/regulator if they think someone else is getting away without registering, or have a marketing advantage they don’t have, and will take it upon themselves to interpret the rules any way they like and anonymously act as judge and jury of those who don’t toe the party line. Or publicly sneer at those who are grand parented into the system. Or publicly sneer at those professions not “scientific” enough or “professional” enough to be regulated yet, or those therapists who could register but who choose not to (must be dodgy .......).

There's enough professional terrorism out there already, I have already been a victim of it, and I for one won't voluntarily be paying to encourage it, whoever sets it up.

 

[Lil Helper]

Hi Paul,
that is what a regulator does, those are not my rules, however, take the HPC as Rustic has mentioned, physios, podiatrists etc etc have to pay to register with them. Currently if you are not HPC registered, you cannot take part in the vast majority of healthcare cash back schemes....so pretty much every practitioner will register, or lose out on lots of work. The sums are quite simple. This should be the same for our profession, but hasnt happened because we havent been regulated.

So on one hand we all bleat on about our therapies not being recognised, and on the other, when we do attempt to get recognition, we dont want it, nor do we want to pay a small sum for it.

Lets look at the new NICE guidelines for lower back pain, and Paul as a massage therapist, this should make your ears prick up....NICE have recommended that soft tissue/massage whatever you want to call it, be used in the treatment of lower back pain......guess who its recommending for the work....physiotherapists....even though it acknowledges that most are not trained. Now that massage is regulated, we can go to NICE and tell them that what we have are a bunch of TRAINED and regulated therapists, that can treat back pain using massage.

Rustic, how would you expect a regulator to protect you as a therapist? Or put another way, how would you WANT it to protect you? In my opinion, your Professional Association should be protecting you.

The reason I join any organisation is primarily for what it can do for me, as a therapist. What are the benefits and the advantages? I have joined many associations because I have made sure that they have worked for me, and I have made back more than I paid them in registration fees. The reason I registered with CNHC is exactly the same, just as chiropodists and physios register with HPC, because it benefits them financially, regardless of wether the public know who HPC are, the people paying for their treatments, ie, health care insurers and the like, know who they are. We all know we can never have enough clients, and if I can get an additional stream coming through my door, then I will. This is what we are working on with CNHC.

Anyway guys, ive always said, you have to make your own choices, I know that for me joining CNHC is the right thing to do.

Yoshin, you do mention GRCCT quite a lot. Do you actually know who GRCCT are made up of, because they make no mention of it on their website, not do they have any information on the Professional Associations that they have worked with to get regulation, yes I know they list lots, including mine, but they have actually done any work with us (unlike CNHC), and had they have approached us to do any work, as a Professional Association, we would have been very happy to, but they never did, nor did they contact any of the other PAs that I have put this question to. Now if they are a regulator, how can they regulate without coming to the PA's that represent the therapists in the UK. Or, have they kept it to their own PAs? Well surely not, because a PA should be seperate from a regulator, otherwise it would be conflict of interest, surely? After all it does say that on their own website..so then, if those running GRCCT were running their own PAs surely they would be in conflict with themselves??? Ah well, seeing as I have tried for months to find out officially, but cant, then it seems we wont know the answers to this will we, unless you can tell me who is running GRCCT???

 

[Timbo is here]

Like many other PAs we are considering our position in respect of the CNHC. Their good intent is absolutely clear and the potential benefits (NHS referalls, recognition by private health insurers), have significant implications for all practitioners. Like any organisation it will take time for it to achieve recognition and credibility, and it will need to continue to promote the benefits of membership to the PAs who will ultimately recommend or not recommend membership to its practitioners.

From our position it would be good to see CNHC and GCRRT put their differences aside. If the profession is to move forward we need mature discussion and cooperation.

Paul

Sports Massage Association

 

[Psyluna]

Sorry, I meant GRCCT!

 

[DrLove]

This issue should not be financial and about the regulated getting more clients.

I am in private practice. I’m not interested in cash backs, or putting the regulatory noose round my neck to get clients. Chiropodists and physios are in the HPC if they have to be to get NHS work, or just think they have to be because of protected titles etc. But how many of them are really happy to be part of it?

How would I expect a regulator to protect me as a therapist? Well for starters in the event of a complaint against me I don’t expect to get the HPC system. In the event of a complaint against an HPC registrant, the names etc are published on the HPC website 4 weeks before the hearings. If the complaint isn’t upheld, the damage has already been done.

As for professional associations protecting me - what are the professional associations involved with the HPC doing about the complaints system? How did that happen in the first place? I am certainly not going to help fund that sort of injustice in my own profession even if there were financial advantages to me of joining the equivalent of the HPC.

Sports Therapy you have said “you have to make your own choices” but if everyone becomes regulated, where are my choices?

 

[thegubmint]

Unfortunately, when this happened with the osteopaths, the majority voted with their feet and left the recognised organisation, most were not prepared to give cheap treatments on the NHS after what it had cost them to undergo their training.

We must also recognise that being a member of any organisation does not guarantee that the person is good at what they do, it is a perceived thing. As long as people have undergone whatever training is deemed correct to join a trade organisation and they have the necessary insurance then they can pay the fee and join.

This has been shown in the Harold Shipman case and many other Dr's who have either voluntarily retired or been struck off the register, but that was only after a long time with reported incidents.

As for people claiming off their insurances for treatment, they already can do with some companies regardless of if we are in a recognised trade organisation or not. Also if people come with work related or a car accident type injury then they also usually get reimbursed for all their fees from the insurance companies.

Yes I agree about the physios not being trained in massage these days, I find that this is very good for business.

As far as I can see the only people who stand to gain from an organisation of this type are the directors who run it. They set up a company, often with charitable status, and try and convince 10,000 self employed businesses that it is in their interest to pay them £100 or so a year to be a member of their prestigeous organisation; work out the sums, a nice little, well not so little, earner for someone

 

[qyekcuqyidsisxexg]

There are some good valid points being made here, but we will all have our differences of opinion, I have always said that I fully support regulation, and that is where I stand today.

 

[Sexy Chocolate]

My opinion for what it is worth,
As a sports therapist I am fully aware that the statutory regulation application was flawed due to the inability of the applicant to communicate with the industry to gauge the necessary level of support, coupled with some basic errors in actually filling in information on the application itself.
I want to have some recognition for the advanced level of training that I have enjoyed and sometimes endured over the past 10 years, I am supporting this voluntary regulatory process in order that we, as an industry can begin to introduce minimum standards of training. The GCMT PAs have introduced minimum standards for its members in line with the new NOS levels of education, and I'm sorry if I upset some of you here, but what in God's name are we allowing these wholly distance learning companies and one day diploma courses to continue to turn out ill prepared therapists who drag our good name through the mire by administering ineffective and ill informed treatments.

I could as many are doing sit with my head in the sand and coninue to spout untruths and propoganda for the anti CAM brigade, instead I have got off my arse and got involved with the process, I attend meetings and play devils advocate, I ask questions that others wont ask and I state things that my colleagues are telling me, I quote the information that appears on this forum and I rattle cages.
I do this so that I can do my bit in ensuring those who are in a position to do so, work on my behalf and on behalf of those on here who are prepared to sit and wait.

It is your money at the end of the day so you make your own choice, I dont give two hoots if you join or dont, the thing is that if you come on here and spout off, you should as most of us do, at least have the boll**ks to stand by your posts and at the very least tell us who you are.

I have heard this group is better than the other group until I am blue in the face, and I agree that in a perfect world we would all be round the same table at the same time and be able to discuss things like adults but this is the bottom line,
In this industry there are leaders of diffenet therapies most of whom have been the driving force for several or more years, it is therefore unlikely that these people who have fought your corner for so long are going to suddenly turn into meek and gentle folk who sit together and agree their differences without the kind of heated discussions that we contribute to.

I recently attended a meeting where a number of PAs went to CNHC to ask the probing type of questions you have mentioned in earlier posts, and yes there was the expected political responses but also progress was made, there is an imminent board meeting where some of these issues will be addressed. I await their responses before further comment.
regards
BGFL

 

[Mother Nature]

Is that directed at me? If so, I'm not spouting off. I have an opinion, and if you are prepared to debate with me as an equal, why do you need to know who I am? If it seems that I am not grateful that people are putting time and effort into something that most of us aren't aware of the long term implications of, I'm sorry if I've disappointed you. I'm not against anyone getting the recognition they deserve - but I am against it being at my expense, both financially and professionally. I am not going to sleepwalk into something on a par with the HPC ....

If this thread is really for the benefit of pro regulators to pat each other on the back, and isn't open to anyone else unless they "out" themselves, someone just say so.....

 

[GanjaReviewer]

Hi rustic, I know gaz and I know he would not target an individual with a comment, I feel he is frustrated at the 'newbies' who come on forums like these, spread muck, and then disappear in a haze of anonymity. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and by the way, I don't like the way HPC deal with their disciplinaries either, and it were my members being treated that way I would be shouting from the rooftops! Fair enough if they are guilty of misconduct, then we have a right to know, but you are right, it shouldn't be published until after the hearing.