Rationale The implicit use of overarching osteopathic principles (OP) in clinical practice is a regulatory requirement; agreed definition of what constitutes such principles remains elusive. The profession currently faces questions of identity and relevance in the face of evidence-informed healthcare. Objective This study sought to investigate the opinions and experiences of practising osteopathic educators as to how OP are relevant to clinical practice in isolation and to the profession as a whole. Design A qualitative approach employing grounded theory to explore the views of current practitioners involved in osteopathic education. Subjects Nine practising osteopaths were selected for the study using initially purposive then theoretical sampling. Methodology Semi-structured interviews were used to gather data, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised. Data was analysed and interpreted using a thematic framework approach and conceptually modelled. Triangulation was completed; peer corroboration for high-level themes and participant confirmation for transcript authenticity was obtained. Results Two polarised concepts emerged: (1) OP benefit the profession and (2) OP limit or jeopardize the profession. These emanated from different perceptions of the identity of osteopathy: (1) osteopathy as a philosophy or (2) osteopathy as a manual therapy with a philosophical background. Conclusion The osteopathic profession faces the danger of being divided on the basis of ideological differences from within. The increasing criticality applied to UK healthcare behoves the osteopathic profession to clarify its aims, guiding ‘principles’ and underlying values. This could be problematic in light of the divergence of views, leading to a situation of either settling these differences or irrevocably fracturing the profession.
Full Text via ClinicalKey