The legislative position of the Osteopath in Italy after the Decree of the Ministry of Universities and Research of 29 November 2023, in agreement with the Minister of Health: implications in terms of professional responsibility and current shortcomings.

Background: At the end of a long definition and legislative process (Law No.3 of 11 January 2018 and DPR No 131 of 2021), started under the thrust of the European directives, with the Decree of the Ministry of Universities and Research of 29 November 2023, in agreement with the Minister of Health, osteopathy in Italy has become a healthcare profession in all respects. Materials and Methods: In order to understand the current legislative and professional position of the Osteopath, research of the original definitions and the history of the profession has been carried out, assessing an overview of the current situations among EU countries. Therefore, an analysis of the current Italian legislation has been carried out in a medical-legal key, with a critical eye aimed above all at assessing the current shortcomings. Conclusions: The inclusion of osteopathy as a healthcare profession in Italy is a significant step towards the regulation and recognition of this practice, implying considerable innovations both in terms of access to the profession, both in the field of the professional health responsibility. Even if with the Decree of 29 November 2023, a significant step forward has been made, further regulatory and control measures are needed to ensure the quality, safety, and effectiveness of osteopathic treatments, as well as the protection of patients and the professionalism of operators.

Complaints about chiropractors, osteopaths, and physiotherapists: a retrospective cohort study of health, performance, and conduct concerns.

Background: Recent media reports have highlighted the risks to patients that may occur when practitioners in the chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy professions provide services in an unethical or unsafe manner. Yet research on complaints about chiropractors, osteopaths, and physiotherapists is limited. Our aim was to understand differences in the frequency and nature of formal complaints about practitioners in these professions in order to inform improvements in professional regulation and education. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analysed all formal complaints about all registered chiropractors, osteopaths, and physiotherapists in Australia lodged with health regulators between 2011 and 2016. Based on initial assessments by regulators, complaints were classified into 11 complaint issues across three domains: performance, professional conduct, and health. Differences in complaint rate were assessed using incidence rate ratios. A multivariate negative binomial regression model was used to identify predictors of complaints among practitioners in these professions. Results: Patients and their relatives were the most common source of complaints about chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists. Concerns about professional conduct accounted for more than half of the complaints about practitioners in these three professions. Regulatory outcome of complaints differed by profession. Male practitioners, those who were older than 65 years, and those who practised in metropolitan areas were at higher risk of complaint. The overall rate of complaints was higher for chiropractors than osteopaths and physiotherapists (29 vs. 10 vs. 5 complaints per 1000 practice years respectively, p < 0.001). Among chiropractors, 1% of practitioners received more than one complaint - they accounted for 36% of the complaints within their profession. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates differences in the frequency of complaints by source, issue and outcome across the chiropractic, osteopathic and physiotherapy professions. Independent of profession, male sex and older age were significant risk factors for complaint in these professions. Chiropractors were at higher risk of being the subject of a complaint to their practitioner board compared with osteopaths and physiotherapists. These findings may assist regulatory boards, professional associations and universities in developing programs that avert patient dissatisfaction and harm and reduce the burden of complaints on practitioners.

Survey of state medical and osteopathy board disciplinary web sites in 2006.

We sought to describe doctor disciplinary information provided on the web sites of state medical and osteopathic boards. Information collected included state board, hospital and federal government actions, as well as malpractice judgments and settlements and conviction information. Web sites were also assessed for user-friendliness, primarily their searchability. Expert reviewers provided weights for these elements, yielding a 100-point score. The median score was 42.4 (range: 12.3-83.7). All sites provided physician profile information and 92% offer at least some board disciplinary information. Thirty-two percent provided non-state disciplinary information and 13 states' web sites were not searchable. We conclude that some boards provide very limited information and many do not facilitate efficient consumer access. The findings were released on Public Citizen's web site on October 17, 2006.