Blog: A Shared Responsibility - Leadership, trust and the safety of patients

Earlier this month I wrote to ask you to reflect on your knowledge of cervical arterial stroke, and to consider your preparedness if you encountered a patient suffering a stroke. You can also read it here in the communications section of the portal, or on the GCC website.

I do not want here to go over the circumstances behind the establishment of the Expert Group responsible for the letter (you can read more about that on the website). But I do want to acknowledge the leadership shown across the whole profession by the four Professional Associations and the Royal College of Chiropractors. Despite not all being directly involved in the independent expert group, all the leaders trusted the independence of the process and, after appropriate consideration, were signatories to the letter.

The joint nature of that communication matters. It demonstrates that, when it counts, the leadership of the profession can speak with clarity on the safety of patients and professional responsibility. Like any profession, chiropractic has a breadth of perspectives and differences; at times those differences can feel divisive, or even insurmountable.

What stood out here was leaders from across the profession stepping up and putting the interests of patients, registrants and the reputation of the profession ahead of any organisational or personal agenda.

Collaboration is a tricky thing to demonstrate, and even trickier to objectively measure. It requires trust, honesty and an acknowledgement that we may not always agree or share the same priorities.

While the benefits of collaboration are clear when priorities are aligned, there are also benefits when there is disagreement. Understanding and respecting each other’s point of view can be an opportunity for self-reflection. It can strengthen our understanding of our own position, encourage us to be flexible, and learn from each other’s approach.

Collaboration is not the same as conformity. The safety of patients and professional standards are better served when we assess arguments on their merits, stay curious about why others see things differently, and keep our identity rooted in our responsibilities rather than our affiliations.