A Survey of American Chiropractic Association Members' Experiences, Attitudes, and Perceptions of Practice in Integrated Health Care Settings

Chiropractors in Multidisciplinary Teams: Enablers of Colocation Integration in GP-Led Primary Healthcare

The aim of this study was to explore and document the enablers and barriers of chiropractic care colocation in general practice at a large-scale private primary care centre in Australia. This study focused on the perceptions of healthcare professionals regarding this integration. The research setting was a large integrated primary care centre located in an outer metro, low-socioeconomic area in the City of Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia. Participant inclusion criteria included general medical practitioners, practice nurses, and medical managers who self-reported interactions with the physically collocated and integrated chiropractic practice. Data was collected from 22 participants using face-to-face, qualitative, semi-structured interviews with an average duration of 32 min. The data collected included perceptions of chiropractic treatment, enablers to patient referral pathways, and views of the integrated chiropractic care model. A reflexive thematic analysis was conducted on the data set. All participants reported that this was their first exposure to the colocation of a chiropractor within a general medical practice. Four key enablers of chiropractic care integration were identified: (1) the practitioner [chiropractor], (2) the organisation [general practice], (3) consumer flow, and (4) the environment [shared spaces and tenant ecosystem]. The chiropractic integration enhanced knowledge sharing and interprofessional trust among healthcare providers. The formal reporting of patient outcomes and understanding of the chiropractor's scope of practice further enabled referrals to the service. Shared administrative and business processes, including patient records, booking systems, and clinical meetings, facilitated relationship development between the chiropractor and referring health providers. Colocation as part of a larger primary care centre created proximity and convenience for health providers in terms of interprofessional communication, and for patients, in terms of access to chiropractic services. Existing governance structures supported communication, professional education, and shared values related to the delivery of patient-centred care. Identified barriers included limited public funding for chiropractic services resulting in reduced access for patients of low-socioeconomic status. Additionally, scepticism or negativity towards the discipline of chiropractic care was identified as an initial barrier to refer patients. In most cases, this view towards the chiropractor was overcome by regular patient reporting of positive treatment outcomes to their GP, the delivery of education sessions by the chiropractor for the health providers, and the development of interprofessional trust between the chiropractor and referring health providers. This study provides preliminary evidence and a conceptual framework of factors influencing the successful integration of chiropractic care within an Australian large primary care centre. The data collected indicated that integration of chiropractic care into a primary care centre serving a low-socioeconomic region can be achieved with a high degree of health provider satisfaction.

Healthcare provider perspectives on integrating a comprehensive spine care model in an academic health system: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Healthcare systems (HCS) are challenged in adopting and sustaining comprehensive approaches to spine care that require coordination and collaboration among multiple service units. The integration of clinicians who provide first line, evidence-based, non-pharmacological therapies further complicates adoption of these care pathways. This cross-sectional study explored clinician perceptions about the integration of guideline-concordant care and optimal spine care workforce requirements within an academic HCS.

METHODS

Spine care clinicians from Duke University Health System (DUHS) completed a 26-item online survey via Qualtrics on barriers and facilitators to delivering guideline concordant care for low back pain patients. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 27 clinicians (57% response) responded to one or more items on the questionnaire, with 23 completing the majority of questions. Respondents reported that guidelines were implementable within DUHS, but no spine care guideline was used consistently across provider types. Guideline access and integration with electronic records were barriers to use. Respondents (81%) agreed most patients would benefit from non-pharmacological therapies such as physical therapy or chiropractic before receiving specialty referrals. Providers perceived spine patients expected diagnostic imaging (81%) and medication (70%) over non-pharmacological therapies. Providers agreed that receiving imaging (63%) and opioids (59%) benchmarks could be helpful but might not change their ordering practice, even if nudged by best practice advisories. Participants felt that an optimal spine care workforce would require more chiropractors and primary care providers and fewer neurosurgeons and orthopedists. In qualitative responses, respondents emphasized the following barriers to guideline-concordant care implementation: patient expectations, provider confidence with referral pathways, timely access, and the appropriate role of spine surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Spine care clinicians had positive support for current tenets of guideline-concordant spine care for low back pain patients. However, significant barriers to implementation were identified, including mixed opinions about integration of non-pharmacological therapies, referral pathways, and best practices for imaging and opioid use.

Association between chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy and benzodiazepine prescription in patients with radicular low back pain: a retrospective cohort study using real-world data from the USA

OBJECTIVES

Although chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) and prescription benzodiazepines are common treatments for radicular low back pain (rLBP), no research has examined the relationship between these interventions. We hypothesise that utilisation of CSMT for newly diagnosed rLBP is associated with reduced odds of benzodiazepine prescription through 12 months' follow-up.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

National, multicentre 73-million-patient electronic health records-based network (TriNetX) in the USA, queried on 30 July 2021, yielding data from 2003 to the date of query.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 18-49 with an index diagnosis of rLBP were included. Serious aetiologies of low back pain, structural deformities, alternative neurological lesions and absolute benzodiazepine contraindications were excluded. Patients were assigned to cohorts according to CSMT receipt or absence. Propensity score matching was used to control for covariates that could influence the likelihood of benzodiazepine utilisation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The number, percentage and OR of patients receiving a benzodiazepine prescription over 3, 6 and 12 months' follow-up prematching and postmatching.

RESULTS

After matching, there were 9206 patients (mean (SD) age, 37.6 (8.3) years, 54% male) per cohort. Odds of receiving a benzodiazepine prescription were significantly lower in the CSMT cohort over all follow-up windows prematching and postmatching (p<0.0001). After matching, the OR (95% CI) of benzodiazepine prescription at 3 months was 0.56 (0.50 to 0.64), at 6 months 0.61 (0.55 to 0.68) and 12 months 0.67 (0.62 to 0.74). Sensitivity analysis suggested a patient preference to avoid prescription medications did not explain the study findings.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that receiving CSMT for newly diagnosed rLBP is associated with reduced odds of receiving a benzodiazepine prescription during follow-up. These results provide real-world evidence of practice guideline-concordance among patients entering this care pathway. Benzodiazepine prescription for rLBP should be further examined in a randomised trial including patients receiving chiropractic or usual medical care, to reduce residual confounding.

Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession part 8: Judgment impact

OBJECTIVE

This paper is the eighth in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the possible impact that the final decision in favor of the plaintiffs may have had on the chiropractic profession.

METHODS

This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 papers following a successive timeline. This paper is the eighth of the series that discusses how the trial decision may have influenced the chiropractic that we know today in the United States.

RESULTS

Chiropractic practice, education, and research have changed since before the lawsuit was filed. There are several areas in which we propose that the trial decision may have had an impact on the chiropractic profession.

CONCLUSION

The lawsuit removed the barriers that were implemented by organized medicine against the chiropractic profession. The quality of chiropractic practice, education, and research continues to improve and the profession continues to meet its most fundamental mission: to improve the lives of patients. Chiropractors practicing in the United States today are allowed to collaborate freely with other health professionals. Today, patients have the option to access chiropractic care because of the dedicated efforts of many people to reduce the previous barriers. It is up to the present-day members of the medical and chiropractic professions to look back and to remember what happened. By recalling the events surrounding the lawsuit, we may have a better understanding about our professions today. This information may help to facilitate interactions between medicine and chiropractic and to develop more respectful partnerships focused on creating a better future for the health of the public. The future of the chiropractic profession rests in the heads, hearts, and hands of its current members to do what is right.

Chiropractic case reports: a review and bibliometric analysis

Objective

To determine publication trends, gaps, and predictors of citation of chiropractic case reports (CRs).

Methods

A bibliometric review was conducted by searching PubMed, Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL), and Google Scholar to identify PubMed-indexed CRs, which were screened according to selection criteria. Case reports were categorized by International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) code, patient age, topic describing case management or adverse effects of care, focus being spinal or non-spinal, journal type, integrative authorship, title metrics, and citation metrics. Binary logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of citations per year and total citations greater than the median values.

Results

The search identified 1176 chiropractic CRs meeting selection criteria. There was an increasing trend of CRs having a case management topic, non-spinal focus, non-chiropractic journal, neuromusculoskeletal-focus, diagnosis of vascular pathology, and a decreasing trend of adverse effect vascular pathology CRs. Independent predictors of greater total citations (or citation rate) included ICD-10 categories of perinatal conditions, infections, “case” in title, case management topic, and physical therapy, integrative, and dental journal type. Predictors of fewer citations included diseases of the blood, neoplasms, other findings not elsewhere classified, a title > 11 words, and multidisciplinary authorship. ICD-10 categories describing non-musculoskeletal diseases and special populations such as pediatrics, pregnancy, and perinatal conditions had few CRs.

Conclusion

Chiropractic CRs are diversifying from spine-related topics. Chiropractors are encouraged to publish objective, structured CRs within defined research gaps. Published CRs can inform the design of future research studies with a higher level of clinical relevance and evidence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-021-00374-5.

An overview of the medical specialties most relevant to chiropractic practice and education

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to present an overview of the key medical and surgical specialties most likely relevant to chiropractic practice in the United States. Understanding the similarities and differences in the training and typical practices of these medical providers may enhance a chiropractor's likelihood to collaborate and increase participation in team-based care.

METHODS

This was a descriptive analysis to develop preliminary content on US medical physician specialties. Selection was informed by the authors' clinical experience with medical collaboration, along with results of previously published work on medical specialties most commonly reported to be involved in referral patterns with US chiropractors. Data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and individual specialty boards were synthesized through an iterative process, and supplemented by qualitative input from subject matter experts. Data were entered into tabular format for review and analysis.

RESULTS

We propose that the medical and surgical specialties most relevant to typical US chiropractic practice are internal medicine, family medicine, emergency medicine, physical medicine and rehabilitation, neurology, pain medicine, rheumatology, radiology, orthopedic surgery, and neurological surgery. There is overlap in scope of conditions and diagnostic and therapeutic tools utilized by various medical specialties.

CONCLUSION

This work describes 8 medical and 2 surgical specialties proposed to be most relevant to general chiropractic practice in the United States. The results may have relevance to interprofessional education and collaboration.

Be good, communicate, and collaborate: a qualitative analysis of stakeholder perspectives on adding a chiropractor to the multidisciplinary rehabilitation team

Background

While chiropractors are integrating into multidisciplinary settings with increasing frequency, the perceptions of medical providers and patients toward adding chiropractors to existing healthcare teams is not well-understood. This study explored the qualities preferred in a chiropractor by key stakeholders in a neurorehabilitation setting.

Methods

This qualitative analysis was part of a multi-phase, organizational case study designed to evaluate the planned integration of a chiropractor into a multidisciplinary rehabilitation team. The setting was a 62-bed rehabilitation specialty hospital located in the northeastern United States. Participants included patients, families, community members, and professional staff of the administrative, medical, nursing, and therapy departments. Data collection consisted of audiotaped, individual interviews and profession-specific focus groups guided by a semi-structured interview schedule. Transcripts were imported into a qualitative data analysis program for data analysis. An iterative coding process using thematic content analysis categorized key themes and domains.

Results

Sixty participants were interviewed in June 2015, including 48 staff members, 6 patients, 4 family members, and 2 community members. Our analysis generated a conceptual model of The Preferred Chiropractor for Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation Settings composed of 5 domains and 13 themes. The central domain, Patient-Centeredness, or the provision of healthcare that is respectful, responsive, and inclusive of the patient’s values, preferences, and needs, was mentioned in all interviews and linked to all other themes. The Professional Qualities domain highlighted clinical acumen, efficacious treatment, and being a safe practitioner. Interpersonal Qualities encouraged chiropractors to offer patients their comforting patience, familiar connections, and emotional intelligence. Interprofessional Qualities emphasized teamwork, resourcefulness, and openness to feedback as characteristics to enhance the chiropractor’s ability to work within an interdisciplinary setting. Organizational Qualities, including personality fit, institutional compliance, and mission alignment were important attributes for working in a specific healthcare organization.

Conclusions

Our findings provide an expanded view of the qualities that chiropractors might bring to multidisciplinary healthcare settings. Rather than labeling stakeholder perceptions as good, bad or indifferent as in previous studies, these results highlight specific attributes chiropractors might cultivate to enhance the patient outcomes and the experience of healthcare, influence clinical decision-making and interprofessional teamwork, and impact healthcare organizations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12998-018-0200-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.