Guidelines are everywhere these days, we have guidelines on most imaginable subjects and some not. We are advised how to manage low back pain, whiplash and many other conditions by learned groups of eminent persons getting together and reviewing all the evidence. There is a minor business of its own going in the publication of such guidelines, driven by the complexity of many conditions and the costs associated with managing them. The United Kingdom has many bodies engaged in this work including NICE, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which engages in-depth assessment of treatments and interventions and decides on their usefulness and cost-effectiveness.
With NICE guidelines, Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) guidelines and all the others, those of us in the business of managing clinical caseloads on a day to day basis have a lot of reading to do! And it could be important. Recently a spinal treatment and rehabilitation clinic in the UK was successfully prosecuted by the Health Care Commission (HCC), soon to become the Care Quality Commission (CQC), for not offering spinal physiotherapy to its patients. This contravenes the CSP recommendations for the rehabilitation of spinal patients and the clinic was found guilty of transgression and ordered to comply.
The implication of this case is that we all have an obligation to be aware of the recent analysis and recommendations for the conditions that we manage and show that we are applying them to patient care. We are expected to follow the pathways laid down to some extent and could be asked some very uncomfortable questions about why we chose the treatment approach we did should there be a complaint or legal case involved. We also have to ask ourselves why we would not follow the recommendations of an established body that have produced a serious document. Just not doing so is not good enough.
I want to use my clinical judgment is often the cry that goes up when the idea of having to follow external guidelines for assessing and treating our patients comes up. We want to have the control of what we do and make appropriate decisions based on our clinical experience. The different professions are a little like mysterious clubs who dispense knowledge to their initiates so that the special healing techniques can be deployed. We are all resistant to change in varying degrees and there is a degree of closed shop protectionism about some of our attitudes. Criticism is met very quickly with rejection as we strive to protect our core professionalism which we interpret as under attack.
The limits of our knowledge and effectiveness are now important things to establish if we are to stand up to scrutiny. The physiotherapy paradigm, in which I was educated, thinks about the function and dysfunction of the body in a specific way. This colours our view of what to do when we treat patients and some of my views are therefore:
Most individuals do not need routine adjustment or other treatment to function normally, a wide variation in structure and function is seen.
Self limiting conditions will tend to be that and there is a questionable need for intervention in many cases.
Most conditions are self limiting and much of our effectiveness is due to nature and time.
Validated measures of outcome have not been used across much of our work, making our effectiveness hard to ascertain.
We may be wrong in assuming the credit for improvement in many patients.
Much of our self worth about making a difference to particular conditions may be built on sand.
Technical treatments are seductive and often suggested rather than the less concrete work needing to be done to help an individual change.
None of this is to have a negative view of our professions, which I am sure will continue to contribute greatly to the comfort and health of many people in our communities. We need to have faith in our clinical judgments and our training paradigms but also to scrutinize them for errors and ways to improve our therapeutic approaches.