Day-to-day practice of osteopaths using osteopathy in the cranial field, who are affiliated with the Sutherland Cranial College of Osteopathy (SCCO): A national survey by means of a standardised data collection tool

BackgroundThere is very little published information on the practice of osteopaths using osteopathy in the cranial field (OCF) in the UK today.ObjectivesTo describe the practice of UK osteopaths using OCF who are affiliated with the SCCO; create a profile of their patients; their reasons for seeking treatment; the treatment approaches used; and reported responses to treatment.MethodsProspective cohort study of practitioners and their patients. 278 practitioners were invited to take part by completing an enhanced standardised questionnaire for 10 consecutive patients attending for a new episode of care. A patient-reported symptom severity item was included.ResultsOne in five eligible practitioners (n = 58/270) participated in the study. Questionnaires were returned for 530 patients aged between one week and 89 years. Most patients (68%) were specifically seeking cranial osteopathy, a third reported prior NHS treatment/investigation. Presenting problems included musculoskeletal pain/stiffness (69%) and unsettled baby/infantile colic (13%). Half the patients received cranial-only techniques. Only 6% received osteopathic high velocity thrust techniques. Transient treatment reactions within the first 48 hrs were reported by 32% of patients. Mean patient-reported scores of symptom severity fell from 5.9 (maximum score 10) to 1.6 for those patients with a completed episode of care (p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe majority of patients were seeking a particular approach to osteopathic treatment. Babies or infants and those aged over 70 comprise a substantial group of patients. The majority of patients presented with musculoskeletal complaints. Adverse treatment reactions appeared to be transitory in nature. Many patients reported a significant reduction in symptom severity scores following an average of three treatments. Without a control group, we cannot attribute direct causality to this finding. Further testing of the patient-reported symptom severity Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) as a promising outcome tool in this context is warranted.