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.

In memoriam of Alan H. Adams, DC, MS, MSEd:

In this paper we pay homage to Dr Alan H. Adams, who was born on November 3, 1945, and passed away on December 26, 2020. An early adopter of problem-based learning and evidence-based medicine, he contributed substantially to improving chiropractic education, research, and developing an evidence-based practice mindset for chiropractic practice. People who knew Al best recall that he was a fluent instigator of collaborative relationships, and he inspired and advanced many people in their academic and scientific careers. His curiosity, expertise, and mentorship were appreciated by many people and developed numerous interprofessional collaborations.

It’s not my fault although it might be: chiropractic practice and vicarious liability

Background While chiropractic care is most commonly provided within a private practice context, the ‘traditional’ solo practice is now uncommon. Chiropractors, manual therapists and related health professionals commonly work within the same practice bringing obvious advantages to both the practitioners and their patients. However, multi-practitioner, multi-disciplinary clinics also carry often unrecognized liabilities. We refer here to vicarious liability and non-delegable duties. Vicarious liability refers to the strict liability imposed on one person for the negligent acts of another person. The typical example is an employer being held vicariously liable to the negligent acts of an employee. However, vicarious liability can arise outside of the employer-employee relationship. For example, under non-delegable duty provisions, an entity owing a non-delegable duty can be liable for an independent contractor’s wrongdoing. After a plain English explanation of this complex area of law, we provide seven scenarios to demonstrate how vicarious liability can envelop practice principals when things go wrong. We also make suggestions for risk mitigation. Conclusion Practice owners may unexpectedly find themselves legally liable for another’s actions with dire consequences. A knowledge of vicarious liability along with implementing risk mitigation strategies has the potential to minimize the likelihood of this unwanted event. Recommendations are made to this end.

Skills, attitudes and uptake of evidence-based practice: a cross-sectional study of chiropractors in the Swedish Chiropractic Association

Background Evidence-based practice (EBP) is integral to the delivery of high-quality health care. Chiropractic has been a licensed health profession in Sweden since 1989, but little is known of the uptake of EBP in this professional group. This study explored the self-reported skills, attitudes and uptake of EBP, and the enablers and barriers of EBP uptake, among licensed chiropractors in Sweden. Methods Licensed chiropractors (n = 172) of the Swedish Chiropractic Association (Legitimerade Kiropraktorers Riksorganisation) were invited to participate in an anonymous online questionnaire, using the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude and Utilisation Survey (EBASE) in February 2019. Results Fifty-six (33%) chiropractors completed the survey. Participants were predominantly male, aged 30–49 years, held a Master’s degree, and had received their highest qualification and practiced chiropractic for over a decade. Chiropractors rated their EBP skill-level mostly in the moderate to moderate-high range. The majority of chiropractors reported positive attitudes towards EBP, with most agreeing or strongly agreeing that EBP is necessary in the practice of chiropractic, and that EBP assists in making decisions about patient care. Chiropractors reported an average level of engagement in EBP activities. All participants indicated professional literature and research findings were useful in their day-to-day chiropractic practice. The main perceived enabler of EBP uptake was internet access in the workplace, whereas the main barrier to EBP uptake was lack of clinical evidence in chiropractic. Conclusions Participating chiropractors of the Swedish Chiropractic Association were generally favourable of EBP, though only reported modest levels of EBP-related skills and engagement in EBP activities. Our findings suggest future studies investigating interventions focussed on improving chiropractors’ skills and uptake of EBP are warranted.

PROPORTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW PATIENTS WITH CENTRAL SENSITIZATION PRESENTING TO A CHIROPRACTIC PRACTICE - A CROSS-SECTIONAL OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

Central Sensitization (CS) is postulated as a central explanation of chronic pain. Clinical researchers recommend that therapists screen for CS to avoid diagnostic confusion and improve the allocation of appropriate clinical resources in primary care settings when managing chronic pain patients. However, the percentage of patients presenting with CS to a chiropractic practice has not been found in the literature. This study had two objectives: to use the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) to screen for and identify the proportion and characteristics of consecutive new patients with chronic pain conditions and medically unexplained symptoms who are experiencing CS; and to determine if there were significant clinical relationships between patient characteristics (age, sex, BMI, complaint type and duration, balance issues and presence of comorbid overlapping CS syndromes) and CSI scores. Results indicated that 1 in 5 adult new patients may have experienced CS. ANOVA analysis revealed significant difference between fibromyalgia and chronic spinal pain patients; significant difference due to subjective dizziness; significant difference between the number of positive answers in the CSI-Part B for the CSI>40 subjects and subjects with 2 or more positive answers on CSI Part B compared to those with none/one positive answer. Chiropractors should consider using a validated CS screening tool, such as the CSI, for all new patients, and implementing adjunctive, evidence-based CS clinical management strategies.

Attitudes, beliefs, and practices among Swiss chiropractors regarding medication prescribing for musculoskeletal conditions: a national Q-methodology study

Background Swiss chiropractors have been licensed since 1995 to prescribe from a limited formulary of medications for treating musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. In January 2018, this formulary was expanded to include additional muscle relaxant, analgesic, and anti-inflammatory medications. Internationally, controversy remains over whether or not medication prescribing should be pursued within the chiropractic profession. Objective The purpose of this study was to assess Swiss chiropractors’ attitudes, beliefs, and practices regarding their existing medication prescription privileges. This information will provide new insights on the topic and help inform research and policy discussions about expanding chiropractic prescription rights in other jurisdictions. Methods A 13-item questionnaire and Q-methodology approach were used to conduct the assessment. Recruitment was conducted by e-mail between December 2019 and February 2020, and all members of the Swiss Chiropractic Association were eligible to participate. Data were analyzed using by-person factor analysis and descriptive statistics. Results In total, 187 Swiss chiropractors participated in this study (65.4% response rate). Respondents reported prescribing analgesics, anti-inflammatories, and muscle relaxants to a median of 5, 5, and 0% of patients, respectively. Forty-two percent of respondents expressed interest in further expanding the range of current medications available to Swiss chiropractors for treating MSK conditions. Only 15% expressed interest in expanding this range to include medications for treating non-MSK conditions. In the Q-methodology analysis, four salient viewpoints/groups regarding medication prescribing emerged: prescribers, non-prescribers, collaborators, and integrators. All except non-prescribers thought medication prescription privileges were advantageous for the chiropractic profession in Switzerland. There was also strong consensus among all four groups that medication prescribing should not replace manual therapy in chiropractic practice. Conclusion This was the first national survey on attitudes toward prescribing medications among Swiss chiropractors since the year 2000, and the first using Q-methodology. With this approach, four unique groups of chiropractic prescribers were identified. Even with diversity among clinicians, the findings of this study showed general support for, along with conservative use of, prescribing privileges within the Swiss chiropractic profession. Studies in jurisdictions outside of Switzerland are needed to assess whether chiropractors are interested in expanding their scopes of practice to include similar prescribing privileges.

Neck pain patterns and subgrouping based on weekly SMS-derived trajectories

Background Neck and low back pain represent dynamic conditions that change over time, often with an initial improvement after the onset of a new episode, followed by flare-ups or variations in intensity. Pain trajectories were previously defined based on longitudinal studies of temporal patterns and pain intensity of individuals with low back pain. In this study, we aimed to 1) investigate if the defined patterns and subgroups for low back pain were applicable to neck pain patients in chiropractic practice, 2) explore the robustness of the defined patterns, and 3) investigate if patients within the various patterns differ concerning characteristics and clinical findings. Methods Prospective cohort study including 1208 neck pain patients from chiropractic practice. Patients responded to weekly SMS-questions about pain intensity and frequency over 43 weeks. We categorized individual responses into four main patterns based on number of days with pain and variations in pain intensity, and subdivided each into four subgroups based on pain intensity, resulting in 16 trajectory subgroups. We compared baseline characteristics and clinical findings between patterns and between Persistent fluctuating and Episodic subgroups. Results All but two patients could be classified into one of the 16 subgroups, with 94% in the Persistent fluctuating or Episodic patterns. In the largest subgroup, “Mild Persistent fluctuating” (25%), mean (SD) pain intensity was 3.4 (0.6) and mean days with pain 130. Patients grouped as “Moderate Episodic” (24%) reported a mean pain intensity of 2.7 (0.6) and 39 days with pain. Eight of the 16 subgroups each contained less than 1% of the cohort. Patients in the Persistent fluctuating pattern scored higher than the other patterns in terms of reduced function and psychosocial factors. Conclusions The same subgroups seem to fit neck and low back pain patients, with pain that typically persists and varies in intensity or is episodic. Patients in a Persistent fluctuating pattern are more bothered by their pain than those in other patterns. The low back pain definitions can be used on patients with neck pain, but with the majority of patients classified into 8 subgroups, there seems to be a redundancy in the original model.

Guidance concerning chiropractic practice in response to COVID-19 in the U.S.: A summary of state regulators' web-based information

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented changes, as many state and local governments enacted stay-at-home orders and non-essential businesses were closed. State chiropractic licensing boards play an important role in protecting the public via regulation of licensure and provision of guidance regarding standards of practice, especially during times of change or uncertainty. Objective: The purpose of this study was to summarize the guidance provided in each of the 50 United States, related to chiropractic practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: A review of the public facing websites of governors and state chiropractic licensing boards was conducted in the United States. Data were collected regarding the official guidance provided by each state’s chiropractic licensing board as well as the issuance of stay-at-home orders and designations of essential personnel by state governors. Descriptive statistics were used to report the findings from this project. Results: Each of the 50 state governor’s websites and individual state chiropractic licensing board’s websites were surveyed. Stay-at-home or shelter-in-place orders were issued in 86% of all states. Chiropractors were classified as essential providers in 54% of states, non-essential in one state (2%), and no guidance was provided in the remaining 44% of all states. Fourteen states (28%) recommended restricting visits to only urgent cases and the remaining states (72%) provided no guidance. Twenty-seven states (54%) provided information regarding protecting against infectious disease and the remaining states (46%) provided no guidance. Twenty-two states (44%) provided recommendations regarding chiropractic telehealth and the remaining states (56%) provided no guidance. Seventeen states (34%) altered license renewal requirements and eight states (16%) issued warnings against advertising misleading or false information regarding spinal manipulation and protection from COVID-19.Conclusion: State guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic was heterogenous, widely variability in accessibility, and often no guidance was provided by state chiropractic licensing boards. Some state chiropractic licensing boards chose to assemble guidance for licensees into a single location, which we identified as a best practice for future situations where changes in chiropractic practice must be quickly communicated.