General Chiropractic Council fitness to practise learnings

The General Chiropractic Council has published a number of fitness to practise learnings for Chiropractors.

Use of the term Dr on social media

A chiropractor faced a complaint for using the title “Dr” on their social media profile in a way that could mislead the public into thinking they were a medical doctor or PhD holder. While they believed the inclusion of “DC” (Doctor of Chiropractic) clarified their credentials, this was deemed insufficient under advertising guidelines. The chiropractor promptly corrected their profile, apologized, and ensured compliance with the GCC and ASA standards.

The investigating committee found no evidence of professional misconduct but issued advice to the chiropractor as a precaution. The guidance emphasizes that chiropractors must explicitly state they are not registered medical practitioners and clarify their “Dr” title fully, even in social media contexts, where character limits can pose challenges.

Learning

The GCC said its “guidance is clear that, if you use the courtesy title ‘Doctor’ or ‘Dr’, you must make clear within all public domain text that you are not a registered medical practitioner, but a ‘Doctor of Chiropractic’. The ASA recommend that this clarification is made within the same statement. Failure to do so may lead to you being the subject of complaints or an investigation by the ASA and/or the GCC.

“It can be particularly difficult to provide the clarifications required within the minimal character-count afforded by a social media username, name field or biography – but the lack of space does not mean that the requirement does not apply. It may be tempting to rely on “DC” as the clarification, but in guidance originally issued in 2018, and updated in August 2024, the ASA specifically highlight that the public will not recognise “DC” as meaning “Doctor of Chiropractic” so:

Dr [Name] DC

is not considered sufficiently clear to distinguish a chiropractor from a medical doctor.”

Reassessment of care plans, and misleading claims of chiropractic subluxation

In this case, two allegations against a chiropractor were found proven relating to unacceptable professional conduct, resulting in a four-month suspension by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC). Here’s a concise summary:

1. Allegation 1: Failing to Reassess the Plan of Care

   • The chiropractor neglected to reassess a care plan despite the patient’s worsening symptoms and a new diagnosis of Ménière’s disease.

   • Reassessments were not conducted adequately or timely, and there was over-reliance on thermographic scans.

   • This breached the 2016 GCC Code standards (C4 and C5) for updating and documenting care plans based on patient progress and evidence.

2. Allegation 2: Making Misleading Claims

   • Claims made in videos, a leaflet, and discussions with the patient about chiropractic care and subluxations were deemed misleading and unsupported by robust evidence.

   • The statements about subluxation especially fell far short of GCC standards (B3 and B5) and guidance from 2017 on subluxation claims.

3. Outcome

   • The chiropractor apologized, ceased using the leaflet, and showed commitment to adhering to standards.

   • Despite the lack of actual harm, the risk posed by the conduct and the potential impact on public confidence led to a four-month suspension.

4. Learnings for Registrants

   • Care plans must be reviewed and adapted based on patient needs, adhering to the updated GCC Code from 2026 (Standards D9 and D10).

   • Advertising must be honest and evidence-based to maintain public trust.

Learning for registrants

The GCC said:

“While it is important to create an individual care plan at the start of treatment, the plan must be reviewed and reconsidered appropriately, in discussion with the patient, as you get further information. This is covered by standard C4 of the current Code.

“From 1 January 2026, Principle D of the Code of Professional Practice expands the description of the steps involved in providing patient-centred care (diagnosis, planning care, evaluating care and providing care). This change was made because our stakeholders, including patients, told us of their concerns about the potential for unnecessarily long care plans to be implemented without justification, and their concerns that reviews of care may not be meaningful.”

Standards D9 and D10 of the new Code of Professional Practice focus on:

Evaluating and modifying the plan of care

D9: continuously monitor and record the patient’s progress towards their planned health outcomes, evaluating and adapting the plan of care to meet their needs. You must carry out formal clinical reassessments at regular intervals, using recognised outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of care, as previously agreed with the patient and set out in their plan of care.

D10: discuss with the patient their progression towards their planned health outcomes, agree any continuation or modification to their plan of care and record valid consent.

Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.